get_brand_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description. The description adds the 'local' scope, but otherwise does not detail any additional behavioral traits such as return format, not-found handling, or caching. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no extraneous detail, and every word contributes to the tool's core purpose.

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 simple read-by-id tool with one well-documented parameter and strong readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description is sufficient to allow correct invocation. It explains what the tool reads and how to identify the target, and the lack of an output schema is not a major gap for a straightforward read operation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'id' parameter, and the schema already describes it as 'Brand profile ID.' The description adds 'by ID,' which restates the parameter usage without introducing any new semantic detail. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a specific resource ('local Raven creative brand profile') and explicitly states the access method ('by ID'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_brand_profiles or get_brand_system, though it does not name them directly.

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 intended usage is implied by the phrasing 'Read a local Raven creative brand profile by ID' — a single profile lookup rather than a list or mutation operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, such as list_brand_profiles for retrieving all profiles.

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