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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the access-scoping ('brands the caller can access'), the legacy-brand-group linkage, and per-view content. It does not mention pagination, result limits, or ordering for large brand lists, which is the remaining gap.

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?

The default view and its output fields are front-loaded, followed by one clause per remaining view — no filler sentences. It is a single dense paragraph, which is harder to scan than a bulleted listing but is appropriately sized for a four-mode dispatcher.

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 return-value explanation and does so for every view, including the profile's visual-identity fields. Missing only operational details an agent might want: pagination/limits and behavior when brand_id is invalid or inaccessible.

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 goes beyond the schema by mapping each enum value to the exact payload it returns and specifying which views require brand_id, and it clarifies that omitting workspace_id spans every accessible workspace. This is meaningfully more than the terse schema descriptions.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Brands (clients) and their saved context') and then enumerates all four view modes with what each returns (brand list with IDs/workspace/source/account count; single brand with legacy group; assigned social accounts; voice-and-tone profile with visual identity). It explicitly carves out the boundary against the sibling list_accounts by saying view=accounts is 'use when the user names a brand, not a handle'.

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?

States the default (view=brands), the required parameter for each non-default view, and an explicit selection rule versus the handle-based alternative. An agent can choose the correct mode and parameters without opening the schema.

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