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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds real context beyond them: results may be a single brand or every brand in the workspace depending on what the user authorized. It also warns against autonomous brand selection, a meaningful behavioral constraint, though it does not describe what happens when no brands are authorized.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the scope and payload, then the intended use, then the prohibition. Every clause adds decision-relevant information with no filler.

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 present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, payload fields, intended use, and a guardrail. The only missing piece is the empty-result case, which is minor for such a simple zero-parameter read.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the schema carries nothing to clarify; the baseline applies. The description correctly implies there is no filtering input by explaining that scope is determined by the user's authorization rather than by arguments.

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 and resource (list the Cloud brands authorized on this connection) and immediately specifies the payload fields returned, name and ID. It is clearly separable from siblings such as get_brand_overview or list_accounts, which serve different retrieval purposes.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the use case: translate the brand name the user mentioned into its brand_id, and adds a negative instruction not to choose a brand on the agent's own. It stops short of naming a concrete alternative tool for other brand-related needs, but the when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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