list_brands

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

No annotations are provided, but this is a simple, non-destructive list operation with zero parameters. The description clearly frames it as a discovery/list operation without side effects. It doesn't describe output format or pagination, but with no params and no annotations, the behavioral surface is minimal and adequately communicated.

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, both earning their place. The first states the purpose; the second explains downstream utility. Zero 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?

For a parameterless, side-effect-free listing tool, the description is complete. It states what's listed (brands/domains), the scope (workspace), and downstream consumption. No output schema means some ambiguity about return format, but the simple nature of the tool makes this acceptable.

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?

Zero parameters exist, so the schema imposes no burden. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4. The description adds context about the return value (brands/domains usable by other tools), which is more than sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List the brands/domains tracked in this Cituna workspace.' Distinguishes from siblings by specifying it lists brands/domains, which none of the sibling names (list_gaps, list_keywords, list_content_queue) claim to do.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Handy for discovering which domains you can pass to the audit and gsc_* tools.' This gives actionable guidance on how the returned data is consumed downstream, effectively explaining when to reach for this tool.

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