list_brands

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by explaining it's a local-database lookup and that its primary purpose is supporting other tools by providing brand_id values. It discloses the return content comprehensively without repeating what the output schema already likely conveys.

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 waste. The first sentence delivers the core purpose and field list; the second gives concrete usage triggers. Everything earns its place with no redundancy.

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 0 parameters, an output schema present, and readOnly annotations in place, this description is complete. It names the result fields, ties into the tool ecosystem via brand_id lookup, and gives concrete usage triggers. Nothing is left unaddressed for a list-style tool.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per rubric, a 0-param tool gets baseline 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space on parameters that don't exist.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('List every brand tracked in the local database') and enumerates exactly what fields are returned (domain, category, competitors, refresh frequency, active prompt count). It explains how to use this to look up brand_id for other tools, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that operate on specific brands.

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 description provides explicit usage context: use when the user asks 'which brands am I tracking?' or to look up the brand_id other tools need. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implies how it fits within the broader tool family, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it.

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