check_brand_compliance

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is read-only, explains how color hex values are compared, and discloses that theme-indirected colors are classified as 'unverified'—a useful edge-case disclosure.

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 compact and information-dense; the example JSON conveys structure more efficiently than prose. The read-only note is at the end rather than front-loaded, but every sentence adds necessary detail.

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 presence of an output schema, return-value details need not be explained. The description covers the main rule, key edge cases, and safety behavior. It relies on check_template_compliance for the remainder of the ruleset, which is reasonable because that tool is available in the sibling list.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by providing an example rules JSON object and explaining the colors sub-rule in detail. It references the shared ruleset schema for fonts rather than re-documenting everything, which is acceptable given the sibling reference.

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 function ('brand-guide compliance') and clarifies that it shares its engine with check_template_compliance while adding a colors rule. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling and avoids tautology.

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 explicitly relates this tool to check_template_compliance, giving the agent a basis for deciding which compliance check applies. It stops short of stating exhaustive when-not conditions, but the contextual signal is clear.

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