Read what the project knows about the brand

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that every artifact PromptEye writes for the project reads this first, which signals a shared dependency an agent should be aware of. It doesn't discuss auth or freshness of the underlying data, so it is not exhaustive.

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 the resource definition followed by the reason to care. The closing phrase 'worth knowing what a brand is being judged against' restates the opening clause about measuring against the brand, a minor redundancy, but nothing is padded.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain returns, and the readOnly annotation covers safety. It is complete for a simple read tool, with the only soft gap being that it never says which project's knowledge base is returned (presumably the active one, given select_project/get_active_project siblings).

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. It correctly avoids inventing parameter talk and instead spends its words on what the resource is.

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 specifies the exact resource ('the description of the brand the project measures against') and even its content ('what the company sells and to whom'), so the agent knows precisely what comes back. It does not name the obvious sibling update_knowledge_base, relying on the get_/update_ naming convention to differentiate, which is clear enough but not explicit.

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 a clear usage context — read this before trusting a prompt or competitor judgement — which tells the agent why and when to call it. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusions, so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.

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