List brand/niche profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond this by explicitly stating 'CAPABILITY: read — side-effect-free,' and adds behavioral context about how brands are auto-registered through other tools. This explains why the list may change and what the returned data represents, which is valuable context beyond the structured 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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The following sentences provide essential background on brand semantics, auto-registration, and the BrandVoice distinction. While the description is longer than the absolute minimum, each section (TERMINOLOGY, CAPABILITY) earns its place by preventing real confusion. It could be tightened, but remains well-structured and readable.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It covers what is returned (profiles with post counts), how brands are created (auto-registration), and the critical distinction between 'brand' and 'BrandVoice'. The annotations handle safety concerns, and the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing further details.

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, and the schema confirms this with 100% coverage. The description adds org-level scoping ('the org's') and output information (post counts) but nothing specific to parameters since there are none. Baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and there are no gaps to compensate for.

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's function: 'List the org's brand/niche profiles with post counts.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the detailed explanation of what a 'brand' is (a per-post niche/play tag) distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools like list_boards or list_posts. The BrandVoice disambiguation further eliminates potential confusion with other 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 explains the context of use: to view brand/niche profiles and how engagement rolls up per play. It also gives the important prerequisite that brands auto-register the first time a tag is used on schedule_post, publish_thread, or create_digest_drafts, so no explicit creation step is needed. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this tool appropriately.

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