Get a saved brand

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about what the profile contains and how the asset URLs can be used, but it does not disclose operational details like error behavior for missing brands or any rate limits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose followed by the field inventory and usage note. Every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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, annotations, and full parameter documentation, the description is nearly complete for an agent to call it correctly. The only meaningful gap is the lack of clarification about how this differs from get_brand_assets, which returns overlapping asset URLs.

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%, and the brandId parameter is fully documented in the schema as coming from list_brands / create_brand. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that baseline, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource—getting a saved brand's status and extracted profile—and enumerates the returned fields (brandMd, tone of voice, value props, colorPalette, logo/product URLs). This is much clearer than a generic 'get brand', though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_brands or get_brand_assets, which could overlap on asset URLs.

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 sentence 'Use these asset URLs as reference images for on-brand generation' gives a clear downstream use for the output, but it does not explain when to choose this tool over list_brands or get_brand_assets. Tool-selection guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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