pws_get_brands

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific output scope (brands and default commentary teams) but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, or whether inactive brands are included. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the primary output without any filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 read-only list tool, the description adequately conveys the core purpose. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated because the description names what is returned, though it does not detail the output structure. Still, given the simplicity of the operation, this is nearly 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The schema description coverage is 100%, and the description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than input fields. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('player-company brands and default commentary teams'). It clearly distinguishes itself from other sibling tools like pws_save_brand or pws_assign_worker_brand by focusing on retrieval of brand/commentary data.

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 this tool is for listing brands and their default commentary teams, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Since there is no direct get_brands sibling, the lack of explicit routing is still acceptable but leaves guidance implied.

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