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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely new fact — that brand media/logos are excluded from results — which helps set expectations, but it says nothing about result volume, ordering, or the cursor-based pagination implied by the schema.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Its brevity is appropriate, though the second sentence's exclusion note comes before more essential filtering/pagination information that is absent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described, but this is a 4-parameter searchable, paginated list tool and the description explains none of its filtering, paging, or ordering behavior. Undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage leave the agent guessing.

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 description coverage is 0% for four parameters (limit, query, cursor, industry), so the description carries the full burden — yet it never mentions filtering by query or industry, the default page size of 12, the max of 50, or how the cursor is used. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List brands', with a scoping qualifier about published, reviewed references and an explicit exclusion of logos/media. However, the qualifier is ambiguous (does 'published, reviewed' describe the references or the brands?) and it never distinguishes this from the sibling get_brand, which presumably fetches a single 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?

No indication of when to use this instead of get_brand, find_similar, or search tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the enumeration entry point.

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