Look up TCR brand

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral detail: the tool queries TCR directly and works even if the brand is not registered in the account. Error codes are also provided, adding transparency beyond 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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the main action and purpose, followed by usage guidance and errors. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it (before linking), and error handling. Annotations fill the safety profile, so no further detail is needed.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'tcr_brand_id' already described. The description mentions 'by TCR brand ID' but does not add additional constraints or examples beyond the schema, so it achieves baseline adequacy without extra value.

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 reads brand details from TCR by brand ID, and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by noting it does not require the brand to be registered. The mention of 'msg_link_brand' as a subsequent use case further clarifies its purpose.

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 provides explicit context: use before msg_link_brand to verify a brand exists. It also lists expected errors (NOT_FOUND, TNIQ_ERROR). While it does not include explicit 'when not to use', the guidance is clear and sufficient for an agent to determine appropriate usage.

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