Assess Cultural Risk of a Colour or Palette

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint: true, and the description aligns with this. The description adds behavioral details: returns warnings, positive associations, context-dependent readings per colour family, and specific market flags. It discloses the tool's foundation on documented associations. No contradictions.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the functionality and then provide usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no extraneous information.

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?

The description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it, especially given the presence of an output schema (not shown but noted). It mentions the basis of associations, which adds trust. Minor omission: no mention of limitations or example scenarios, but overall sufficient.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds context by explaining the overall purpose of the parameters (e.g., 'Score a hex value or palette' and 'Optional market focus'). However, it does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, 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 the tool's purpose: 'Score a hex value or palette for cultural sensitivity, symbolic weight, regional taboos, religious associations, and potential misinterpretation across global markets.' It specifies the verb 'Score' and the resource 'cultural risk of a colour or palette,' and differentiates from sibling tools like colour_harmonies or colour_forensics by focusing on cultural risk.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use before deploying a colour in a global brand, product, or campaign context.' It also notes the basis is documented associations, not generalization. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, which would strengthen the guidance.

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