Brand Safety Assessment

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context about the tool's purpose ('fast agent decisions'), output details (risk, score, blockers, etc.), and mode differences, enhancing understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key details in a single, efficient sentence. Every phrase adds value, such as distinguishing from siblings and outlining output components, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (brand safety assessment) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and output structure. However, it doesn't detail error handling or exact format of the 'brand safety block', leaving minor gaps. Annotations provide good behavioral coverage, making this mostly complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds minimal semantics by implying 'mode' affects speed vs. evidence coverage, but doesn't provide extra details beyond what the schema already states (e.g., 'quick' for faster decisions). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 clearly states the specific action ('Return only the brand safety block') and resource ('brand safety'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'brandomica_check_all' by focusing on fast decisions and a specific output format. It explicitly mentions using the same pipeline as 'brandomica_check_all' but with a different output scope.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('for fast agent decisions') and distinguishes it from alternatives by mentioning 'brandomica_check_all' as a sibling with the same pipeline but different output. It implies 'quick' mode is for speed versus 'full' for completeness, though not explicitly naming all siblings.

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