Search brands

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating lookup, so the description is not the sole carrier of behavior. It adds the purpose of the lookup but says nothing about scope (platform-wide brand database vs. the user's own brands), rate limits, or result shape.

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. Every word contributes something an agent can use.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries some burden for the result, and it only gestures at it ('whether its ads are available') without saying what is returned (a boolean, a brand id, availability details). Combined with the undocumented 'name' input, the profile is adequate but incomplete.

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 schema declares zero properties with additionalProperties=true, so it documents no input at all; the description fills that gap by stating the call is made 'by name'. It does not specify name formatting or matching behavior (exact vs. fuzzy), so it stops short of a 5.

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+resource: 'look up a brand by name', with the added outcome ('to see whether its ads are available'). An agent knows what it does, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_my_brand, get_brand_ads, or search_ads, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

'to see whether its ads are available' implies the intent behind the call but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and names no alternative. Against siblings such as get_my_brand or search_ads, the agent is left to infer which to pick.

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