Brand Safety Report

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

Annotations already indicate this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, and open-world operation. The description adds valuable context by specifying the report includes 'limitations' and details like 'availability score' and 'trademark filing estimates', which go beyond the annotations to clarify output content and scope.

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 main purpose, followed by specific components of the report, and ends with the return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (comprehensive reporting) and lack of output schema, the description adequately details the report's components (e.g., 'safety assessment', 'domain costs') and return format ('full JSON report'). However, it could more explicitly address behavioral aspects like rate limits or error handling.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'brand_name' parameter. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Generate a comprehensive Brand Safety Report') and resource ('with timestamped evidence for due diligence'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'brandomica_assess_safety' or 'brandomica_filing_readiness' by emphasizing comprehensive reporting rather than focused checks.

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 due diligence with a comprehensive report, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'brandomica_batch_check' or 'brandomica_check_all'. No exclusions or clear alternatives are provided.

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