Get all brands a retailer is authorized to sell, sorted by brand name. Each entry includes the partnership_date (when the retailer became authorized for that brand).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id_or_alias | Yes | Retailer numeric ID or alias. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are sorted by brand name and includes partnership_date, making behavior transparent. It does not mention pagination or limits, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.
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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The key information (action, resource, sorting, field) is front-loaded.
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?
For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value (all authorized brands, sorted, with partnership_date). No missing critical information.
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% with a single parameter 'id_or_alias' described as 'Retailer numeric ID or alias.' The description repeats the requirement implicitly but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with resource 'brands a retailer is authorized to sell' and includes sorting and additional field 'partnership_date'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_brand_retailers (retailers for a brand) and get_brand (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?
The description is clear about what the tool does (retrieves authorized brands for a retailer) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. However, the sibling tool names provide context, making the intended usage inferable.
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.
