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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety bar is low; the description adds real value by explaining what the response contains (brandId plus counts of products and active listings) and clarifying the brand scope (own vs. shared-registry). With no output schema, this disclosure matters.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition and followed by the usage pointer. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool, the description covers scope, per-item content, and the downstream dependency on brandId — enough for an agent to call it correctly without an output schema.

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% and both parameters (limit, search) are fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no filtering or paging detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 resource (canonical brands of the organization, both own brands and those from the shared registry used by its products) plus the payload per item (product and active-listing counts). An agent can tell this apart from search/outage/price siblings without opening any schema.

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 frames the tool as the starting point ('Es el punto de partida') and names the two siblings that consume the returned brandId, which gives clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating exclusions or what to do when no brand matches.

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