Get all retailers authorized by a brand, sorted by subscription plan (PREMIUM → START → FREE) then by brand-connection count descending. Each retailer includes seal_implemented (whether the authorized.by seal is live on their shop).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id_or_alias | Yes | Brand numeric ID or alias. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses sorting order and the 'seal_implemented' field, but does not mention read-only behavior, authentication, or error scenarios. Adequate for a simple GET tool.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is concise yet informative, though slightly long.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description conveys the return format (list sorted by plan, with seal_implemented). It covers the essential information for a simple list tool with one required parameter.
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 single parameter 'id_or_alias' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-level information, meeting the baseline.
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 clearly states the action ('Get all retailers authorized by a brand') and the resource, specifying sorting order and included field. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_brand or get_retailer_brands.
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 description clearly indicates when to use this tool (to get retailers for a specific brand with sorting). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the name and context make it evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: fetching individual brands/retailers, listing/searching them, and retrieving their cross-relationships. There is no functional overlap.
All tools follow a strict 'get_<entity>_<optional_relation>' pattern in snake_case, providing a predictable and consistent naming convention.
With 6 tools covering both entities (brands and retailers) and their bidirectional relationships, the count is well-scoped for a read-focused API.
The tool set covers all essential read operations: individual lookups, listing/search, and relationship queries for both brands and retailers, leaving no obvious gaps.
