brand_audit_single

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which are consistent with the description's read-only nature. The description adds behavioral details such as discovery depth options, classification types (consolidated, shadowIt, etc.), and quota gating by tier. No contradictions with annotations.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then expands on key features and constraints. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy or unnecessary length.

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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the essential workflow, classification outputs, and tier-based quotas. It does not need to explain return values since the output schema is available. It is complete for an AI agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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?

All 11 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description's role in adding meaning is limited. The description mentions some parameters (depth, brand_aliases, candidate_domains) but does not add substantial new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 verb ('Run a full brand audit'), the resource ('a single target'), and the expected outputs ('discovers brand-related domains, looks up registrar + registrant for each candidate, and classifies each...'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it handles a single target and provides full audit details, unlike batch or status tools.

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 indicates when to use the tool (for a single target audit) and mentions optional parameters like depth, brand aliases, and candidate domains. It also provides quota gating information. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the name and scope imply usage context.

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