Check whether a brand analysis run can be started

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the no-side-effect profile is partly given. The description still adds value by asserting it performs the identical validation create_brand_analysis_run uses and returns the reason for unavailability, which is behavior the annotations alone don't convey.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose (whether a run would start right now) and appends the reason/no-side-effect qualifiers with no wasted text.

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?

With 100% schema coverage on zero params and an output schema present, return values need not be explained. The description covers what the tool does and its relationship to the create tool; only minor gaps remain (e.g., no note on which project context is required).

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 are zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. The description correctly implies the check is scoped to the 'active project' (no argument needed), which is useful context even though no parameter semantics exist to explain.

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?

States a specific check (brand analysis run availability) for a specific resource (the active project) and explicitly ties it to the sibling tool create_brand_analysis_run, so an agent can distinguish it from create_brand_analysis_run and get_brand_analysis_run without opening a schema.

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 phrase 'the same check that tool runs itself, without starting anything' clearly implies this is a preflight to run before create_brand_analysis_run. It names the alternative and its relationship, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention other siblings like get_brand_analysis_run.

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