wb_analytics_brand_share_brands

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool returns brands sold in the last 90 days and that the result is intended as input to brand-share, which is reasonable for a zero-parameter read-style listing. Still, it does not state output shape, uniqueness, pagination, or explicitly confirm a non-mutating read operation, so transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 one compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core meaning ('Seller brands sold in the last 90 days') and then adds the purpose ('input for brand-share'), making every word useful.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this is minimally sufficient: an agent can invoke it and understand the general return concept. However, it does not describe the returned brand identifier format or how the result relates structurally to the brand-share endpoint, leaving some ambiguity for downstream processing.

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 zero parameters and the schema description coverage is complete, so there are no parameter meanings to clarify. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter documentation.

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 identifies a specific resource (seller brands) and a clear time window (last 90 days), and it explains the tool's role as input for brand-share calculations. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get' and does not directly contrast itself with closely related siblings such as wb_analytics_brand_share or wb_brands_list, so it falls just short of full clarity.

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 phrase 'input for brand-share' implies the intended workflow: fetch the sold-brand list first, then feed it to brand-share analytics. There is no explicit 'when not to use' guidance or mention of alternatives among the many sibling analytics and brand tools, leaving usage context implied rather than stated.

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