list_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 states the tool resolves to a canonical record but does not clarify whether this is a list operation (despite the tool name) or a single lookup, nor does it mention side effects, permissions, or pagination behavior. The presence of page and page_size parameters suggests a list, but the description implies a single resolution.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and is highly concise, meeting the criterion for appropriate sizing.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters (all optional) with pagination, and an output schema exists but is not detailed. The description does not explain the behavior of the 'name' parameter (substring match, exact match), the nature of the result (single record or list), or how pagination interacts with the resolution. This incompleteness leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (name, page, page_size) already has a description in the schema. The function-level description adds only the context of filtering type approvals, which does not significantly enhance understanding of the parameters. Therefore, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool resolves a vehicle brand name to its canonical record and specifies the use case of filtering type approvals. The verb 'resolve' and resource 'vehicle brand name to canonical record' are specific, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like list_vehicle_models or list_certification_bodies.

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 resolving brand names when filtering type approvals, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or conditional guidance provided, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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