WikiBrand

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, so the description carries most of the burden and does add real context: an unread site is fetched on the spot with roughly a one-minute wait, which is important latency information for a read tool. It still says nothing about failure modes for invalid domains, caching semantics, or whether repeated calls on an uncached site re-trigger the fetch.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by scope and the latency caveat, then the call to action. Some phrasing is evocative rather than informational ("the ground it sits on"), but it does convey that backgrounds are included, so little is wasted.

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 must describe the return payload, and it does so thoroughly (logo as SVG or image URL, color roles, typefaces, tone, and CSS custom properties). The main remaining gap is behavior on unresolvable or non-brand domains, which an agent would want before invoking.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already documents domain and gives the "stripe.com" example. The description adds no additional meaning about the domain format, normalization, or whether subpaths/protocols are accepted, 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?

The description gives a specific verb (get) and resource (a brand's identity) and then enumerates exactly what is retrieved: logo, colors, typefaces, tone of voice, and theme as CSS custom properties. That is far beyond a tautology of the title. It does not explicitly contrast itself with its sibling search_brands, which is the only thing keeping it from 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?

"Use it to build anything on-brand" states a clear use context, and "Works for any website" broadens the applicability beyond known/curated domains. However, it never names search_brands as the alternative for discovery, and offers no when-not-to-use condition (e.g., for bulk or lookup-only needs).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the shape of each returned record (domain, name, category, signature color), which matters because there is no output schema. It still says nothing about result caps or pagination.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the primary lookup keys and appends the optional filter, with no filler or repetition of the annotations.

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 two-parameter, zero-required search with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, search keys, optional filter, and the returned fields. The one real gap is the missing routing versus get_brand, which an agent must guess at.

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 schema already documents both parameters including the substring semantics and the empty-string behavior. The description's 'by name or domain' and 'optionally within a category' merely restate that, adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Find brands in the WikiBrand catalogue') plus the searchable keys (name or domain) and an optional scope (category). It is clear on its own, but never names or distinguishes itself from the sibling get_brand, leaving the single-vs-multi lookup boundary to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'optionally within a category' and the schema note 'Empty lists everything' tell the agent the tool works as a broad or narrow list. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer get_brand for an exact brand rather than searching, and no stated prerequisites or limits.

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