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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-obvious context — that job tools implicitly default to the workspace's own brand — but discloses nothing further about pagination, ordering, or error behavior.

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, zero padding, with the return content front-loaded and the usage routing in the second sentence. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. The definition is complete enough to invoke correctly; only minor operational details (ordering/pagination) are absent and not strictly needed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and no schema gap to compensate for.

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+resource: 'List the selected workspace's brands, plans and markets.' An agent can tell what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many parse_dashboard_* siblings, but the scope (workspace-level brand/plan/market enumeration) is clear.

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 states when to use it ('to find a brand's slug when the workspace has more than one brand') and names the alternatives whose behavior depends on the result ('the job tools (parse_next_tasks, parse_what_changed) default to the workspace's own brand'). Both the condition and the sibling relationship are spelled out.

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