vestiaire_brands

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well: it states the data is public, sourced from Vestiaire Collective's own brand-directory page, and returns the full directory rather than a filtered subset. It does not mention pagination or size, but for a parameterless read-only directory tool, the relevant behavioral traits are adequately disclosed.

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 information is front-loaded ('full brand directory') and the explanation of how it relates to search filters is valuable. Some redundancy exists — 'Vestiaire Collective's full brand directory' appears twice — but the sentence earns its place by explaining return shape, scope, and source without unnecessary padding.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it covers return fields, data source, public availability, and its relationship to search brand filters. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and what to expect back.

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, so the description cannot add per-parameter meaning. The schema already confirms no inputs are required, and the description reinforces that the tool returns the full directory without filters. This matches the baseline for a no-parameter 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?

States the specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'Vestiaire Collective's full brand directory', and enumerates the return fields (id, name, url). It also distinguishes this tool from a search-scoped brand list by explicitly contrasting with 'brands with active listings for a given search' and naming the brand_id filter and facets.brands it resolves. This is much clearer than the bare tool name.

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 gives clear when-to-use context: use it to resolve the opaque brand_id filter and interpret facets.brands from search responses, and to obtain the complete set of valid brand ids rather than only brands with active listings. It does not name an explicit alternative tool such as vestiaire_search, but the search-scoped contrast makes the intended use case strong and practical.

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