search_brands

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It states the tool is a read-only lookup that returns IDs, which strongly implies a non-destructive search operation. It also discloses the downstream consumption pattern (feeding into search_items). While it doesn't mention match behavior (partial vs exact, result count/format), the read-only nature is reasonably implied and the integration context is disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. It states the purpose and the downstream usage in one compact paragraph. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose, the parameter usage, and how the result is consumed. It could optionally note whether results are paginated or whether partial matches are supported, but for a simple brand lookup the current level of detail is adequate.

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 fully documents the single 'query' parameter, including a placeholder example ('Nike', 'Zara'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema documents, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Search for Vinted brand IDs by name') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings: it returns brand IDs, which are meant to be used with the 'brand_ids' filter in search_items. This clearly positions it as a lookup/support tool distinct from the item/user tools among its siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (searching brand IDs by name) and importantly tells the agent how the output is consumed ('Use the returned IDs with the brand_ids filter in search_items'). This provides clear guidance on the integration point with sibling tools, effectively serving as an explicit usage instruction.

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