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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds real value beyond that: ordering (newest first), a hard page cap of 50, and the `include` expansion behavior for the parent project chain.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the core scope and ordering lead, followed immediately by pagination and the optional expansion. Every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers return size and pagination mechanics, and the annotations carry the safety profile. It does not describe the brand object fields returned, which is a minor gap for a list endpoint.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces `include`'s purpose (loading the parent project chain) but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 with scope ("List the brands configured for a project"), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling list-brand-analytics-tool and list-brand-mentions-tool by resource meaning. It stops short of explicitly naming or excluding those siblings, so it lands just under 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 operational guidance for pagination (omit `cursor` initially, follow `nextCursor`) but says nothing about when to choose this tool over the brand-analytics or brand-mention siblings. Usage is implied by the required `project_id` rather than stated.

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