brand_assets

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds rich behavioral details: robots.txt handling (403 error code), cache control respect (`cache_respected=false` flag), per-target throttling (60 req/min), error responses (502, 403), and untrusted URL warnings. This goes far beyond what annotations provide.

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 paragraph of moderate length, packed with essential information. It is front-loaded with the core action and use cases, but the density of technical details (throttle, caching, error codes) could be slightly better organized. Still, every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 and the presence of an output schema (mentioned but not shown), the description sufficiently covers input, behavior, limitations, ethics, and error handling. It addresses robots.txt, cache control, throttling, untrusted data, and free/pro rate limits. The output fields are summarized, and error conditions are explicitly defined.

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?

Input schema covers the single parameter 'domain' with a description. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds extra context: format examples, prohibition of scheme/path/port, and note about HTTP fallback. This clarifies proper usage beyond the schema's basic type constraint.

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 specific action: scraping a domain's homepage for public brand assets like favicon, og:image, theme-color, og:site_name, and JSON-LD Organization.logo. It provides concrete use cases (enrich CRM, build UIs, correlate visual identity) and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'tech_fingerprint' or 'seo_audit' by focusing only on brand assets from the homepage.

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 advises when to use the tool ('Use to enrich...') and highlights key constraints: homepage-only (path /), no crawling, respects robots.txt, throttle limits. While it does not list alternative tools, the context makes clear it is for brand asset collection, not for broader site analysis. Missing explicit 'when not to use' but sufficient for AI selection.

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