Get saved brand

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, but the description adds value by detailing the content returned (products, logos, palette, positioning, learned memory), the hasBrand indicator, and the fact that it costs 0 credits. It also clarifies the tool's role relative to create tools, which is behavioral context not present in annotations. 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then usage guidance, then a caveat. There is zero filler or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, providing essential information in a compact form.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description needs to cover return semantics and usage context—which it does thoroughly. It states the returned elements (products, logos, palette, positioning, memory), the hasBrand flag, the cost (0 credits), and the relationship to create tools. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description doesn't discuss parameters (there are none), but it does clarify what the output contains, which is irrelevant to parameter semantics. Since there are no inputs to document, the score aligns with the baseline.

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 explicitly states that this tool returns the saved brand profile (products, logos, palette, positioning) and learned memory for the account/workspace. It clearly differentiates from siblings like list_brands (which lists brands) and draft_brand (onboarding) by focusing on the current saved brand and the hasBrand flag. The verb 'get' is implicit via title, but the description makes the resource and purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: call it to check if a brand is on file, with clear branching (if hasBrand true, omit brand; if false, onboard with draft_brand). Also states when not to use it: not required before a render because create tools read the saved brand automatically. This is strong, actionable usage guidance that distinguishes from alternatives.

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