get_brand

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds that the tool returns specific fields and allows field selection via the fields parameter, which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as error handling or response structure beyond what is stated.

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 description is two sentences with no fluff: the first states the core purpose and the second provides a practical tip. Every word earns its place, and the important information is front-loaded.

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 simple get-by-id tool with complete schema and read-only annotations, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool does and what it returns. The lack of an explicit statement that a single object is returned is a minor gap, but the phrase 'full details of a product brand' adequately implies singular retrieval.

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% with clear descriptions for both id and fields. The description adds only a minor usage hint about requesting only needed fields, which slightly enhances but does not significantly extend the schema's meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('product brand') and specifies the kind of details returned (description, image, product count). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_brands (plural) and other create/update/delete brand tools.

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 implies usage for fetching a single brand's full details, and the fields tip suggests how to limit response size. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools like list_brands or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between retrieval and listing.

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