brand_audit_single

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful operational behavior: it performs discovery and lookups, classifies results, and is gated by tier-specific monthly quotas. This provides useful rate-limit and authorization context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the discovery/classification workflow and quota gating. Every sentence carries useful, non-redundant information; the minor typo 'shadowIt' does not undermine clarity.

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 an 11-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description provides a strong high-level account of the audit, outputs, and quota constraints. It does not elaborate on all modes (view, discovery_mode, planner_mode, ownership_verified), but those are fully documented in the schema and are secondary to the core purpose.

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 every parameter with enums, defaults, and constraints. The description only highlights depth, brand_aliases, and candidate_domains, but those are also described in the schema; it adds no new semantic meaning beyond what is already structured.

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 and resource: 'Run a full brand audit on a single target.' It then details the concrete outputs (domain discovery, registrar/registrant lookups, classification into named relationship categories), clearly differentiating this tool from batch/status siblings by the explicit 'single target' scope.

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 clearly establishes the single-target audit context and lists optional kinds of inputs (depth, aliases, candidate domains), but it never explicitly says when not to use it or points to an alternative like brand_audit_batch_start. The sibling names partially imply the choice, but the description itself provides no exclusion or comparison guidance.

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