Brand profile

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the return payload (website, description, voice settings) and its downstream role, which the annotations cannot convey. It omits any statement about empty/unset brand handling or permission requirements.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the usage rationale. The second sentence is long but each clause earns its place by naming the consuming tools and the failure mode avoided. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a read-only, single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and explaining their purpose. An agent knows what it will get back and why it should call it before writing copy; nothing material is missing.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (workspaceId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents its default and per-call override behavior. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific resource ("the workspace's brand") and enumerates its contents: website, description, and voice settings (brand name, @handle, niche, default platform, mention behavior). It is clearly a read operation, implicitly contrasting with the write-oriented sibling update_brand_voice, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: "read it before writing copy so the result sounds like the brand rather than like a generic ad," and states which downstream consumers depend on it (caption writer, UGC prompt builder). No when-not condition or named alternative (e.g., update_brand_voice) is given, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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