Sephora's full brand directory (name and slug for each). Each brand's name is the exact string sephora_search and sephora_category's repeatable brand filter parameter expect.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral contract beyond that: the output is a name/slug pair per brand and the name is the exact token other tools accept, which is cross-tool behavior the annotations and schema do not express.
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, no padding, and the core fact (full brand directory with name and slug) is front-loaded before the interoperability note. 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?
With no parameters, an existing output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies exactly the missing piece: what the directory is for and how its values plug into sibling tools. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is absent.
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 no parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of the sibling brand filter parameter is contextual, not a description of this tool's own inputs.
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 resource ('Sephora's full brand directory') and enumerates what each entry contains (name and slug). It also distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by explaining that its output feeds their brand filter, so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces versus sephora_search.
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?
The second sentence makes the usage context clear: the names returned here are the exact strings sephora_search and sephora_category's brand parameter expect, which tells the agent to call this before filtering. It stops short of an explicit 'use this first / do not use for X' instruction, so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
