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

Annotations already cover idempotency (idempotentHint=true) and non-destructiveness, but the description adds genuine behavior beyond them: mention history accrued while pending becomes visible immediately, and invalid/non-suggestion IDs are surfaced in `skipped` rather than failing. That is useful non-obvious context.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect, then the immediate consequence, then the edge-case handling. No wasted wording.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description partially covers the return by describing the `skipped` field, plus the state transition and history visibility. For a 2-param, fully-annotated mutation this is nearly complete, though it doesn't describe the overall success response shape.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining what happens to ids that are missing or not suggestions (reported in `skipped`). This meaningfully informs how to interpret and supply the ids array beyond the schema's 'Suggested brand IDs to approve'.

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?

States a specific verb (approve) and resource (suggested brands), plus the resulting state change ('become actively tracked competitors'). It even disambiguates the target by tying it to status 'suggested' in list_brands, so an agent can distinguish it from create_brand or update_brand.

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 clarifies the source of the IDs (status 'suggested' in list_brands), which implies when the tool applies. However, it never explicitly contrasts with the obvious sibling reject_suggested_brands or states when not to use it, leaving the selection condition implicit.

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