Get my brand

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the bar is lower. The description adds that the returned value is the previously saved brand, but says nothing about what happens when no brand has been saved (empty state) or about any auth/account scoping.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action leads and the rationale follows. Efficient for a trivial zero-argument tool.

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, read-only getter with no output schema, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. Only gap is the unaddressed empty/no-saved-brand case.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing is encoded in the schema that the description needs 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?

Specific verb ('Show') plus resource ('the brand you saved'), which is enough to separate it from save_my_brand and clear_my_brand in the sibling cluster. The trailing purpose clause ('so research and ads are tailored') names the concrete downstream use, though it doesn't explicitly call out the sibling alternatives.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance and no reference to the obvious alternatives (save_my_brand, clear_my_brand). The purpose clause implies the result is consumed by research/ads tools, but that is motivation, not selection guidance.

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