Complete Brand Colour System

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context: 'Deterministic. No LLM cost,' indicating predictable output and no cost implications, which is valuable beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Complete brand colour system in one call'), followed by a concise enumeration of outputs. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has an output schema (though not provided here), the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns. It covers the key outputs and behavioral traits (deterministic, no LLM cost). With good annotations, completeness is high.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 5 parameters have basic descriptions (e.g., 'Hex values', 'Target market e.g. global, UK, Japan'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond these schema descriptions, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it returns a complete brand colour system with specific outputs like colour roles, light/dark mode maps, typography guidance, etc. The phrase 'Complete brand colour system in one call' differentiates it from other colour tools that may be more specialized, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use when a comprehensive colour system is needed ('Complete brand colour system in one call'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like colour_card or palette_generate. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.