brand_audit_batch_start

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it is async, returns an immediate ack object, consumes quota per domain, and supports optional caller-supplied candidates. Minor gap: no auth/enterprise tier details are mentioned, though the schema mentions enterprise tier for the view parameter.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary action, and structured into three logically ordered sentences: what it does, what is returned and next steps, and the budget implication. No repetitive or irrelevant content.

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?

Given 10 parameters with full schema coverage, an output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers the critical missing context: async behavior, quota cost, batch size limit, and follow-up tool names. It does not explicitly mention the auth requirements or `ownership_verified` conditions, but these are partially captured by the schema and the complexity is moderate, so a 4 is fair.

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 the schema already documents all parameters including defaults, enums, and constraints. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, but it reinforces the overall batch and quota semantics. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Enqueue an async brand audit across up to 50 target domains' and enumerates the key options (discovery depth, brand aliases, candidate domains). It also clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming brand_audit_status and brand_audit_get_report for follow-up.

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 the async workflow: returns immediately, poll with brand_audit_status, fetch results with brand_audit_get_report. This removes ambiguity about when to use this tool vs its sibling tools. Also implies it is the batch entry point versus brand_audit_single.

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