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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the notion that `include` can pull in parent chains; it says nothing about what happens when the id is not found or how large the returned payload can become.

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 tightly scoped sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is slightly wordy ("If you would like to ... you may pass") but still earns its place.

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-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. The one gap is that no output shape is described, though the absence of an output schema makes that a minor omission.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining the purpose of `include` (embedding the pointed-to brand or a deeper parent chain) rather than merely restating the whitelist. That rationale goes beyond the schema's enum of allowed values.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Fetch a single brand mention by its numeric id," which is clearly distinct from list-brand-mentions-tool by the word "single." It does not name the sibling list tool explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

It gives conditional guidance for the optional `include` parameter, but says nothing about when to prefer this over list-brand-mentions-tool or get-response-tool, and offers no exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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