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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context: the response carries each brand's id and status, and the empty-state behavior for a new account (a note for the owner plus their plan). It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but nothing an agent needs is missing.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then usage, then the empty-state caveat. No filler; every sentence delivers distinct information.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably (id, status, and the no-brands empty case). It is nearly complete for a trivial zero-param read tool, lacking only a note on ordering or scope if multiple accounts exist.

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 schema-side to clarify, and the description correctly does not invent parameter semantics.

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 (Lists) and resource (brands/businesses), and scopes it precisely to 'this Rebbel account manages', which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_brand, archive_brand, and rename_brand. An agent can identify this as the read/discovery operation without opening the 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 names two use cases: resolving a brand name to a brandId, and seeing where each brand is. This tells the agent when the tool is the right pick (before calling id-based tools). It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls just shy of a 5.

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