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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: results are scoped to the connection's organization and filtered to brands the user can actually open, plus the one-brand omission rule. Return contents are left to the output schema, which is fine.

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 short sentences, no filler: the scoping and id payload come first, then the downstream usage note. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 no parameters and an output schema handling the return shape, the description only needed to convey scope, permission filtering, and how the ids are consumed. It does all three, plus the single-brand edge case.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document in the schema; baseline is 4. Usefully, the description still explains how the ids it returns feed the brandId parameter on sibling tools and when that parameter may be omitted.

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 resource (the brands of the organization this connection is for, that the user can open) and states the payload (their ids). It signals a discovery/list role clearly, though it never explicitly contrasts with get_brand or list_entities, so an agent has to infer that differentiation from the names alone.

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?

"Tools take a brandId from here; it can be left out when there is only one brand" is genuinely actionable guidance about downstream use and about the degenerate single-brand case. It stops short of stating when not to call it or naming get_brand as the alternative for full brand detail.

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