list_brands

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that by spelling out the payload of each view, which matters because there is no output schema. Pagination, ordering, and error behavior for an invalid brand_id are not 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?

One front-loaded sentence states the resource, followed by a parallel view-by-view enumeration that is easy to scan and free of filler. It is dense, with four view clauses packed into a single paragraph, but every clause carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the returned fields for each view, which is the main thing an agent needs to pick a view. Remaining gaps are minor for a read-only listing tool: no note on ordering, volume, or what happens when brand_id is omitted or invalid.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by mapping each parameter to a view (workspace_id only for view=brands, brand_id required for the other three) and by describing what the view parameter actually selects. This gives an agent a working model of the parameter interactions rather than just field-level text.

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 opens with a specific verb-and-resource framing ("Brands (clients) and their saved context") and then enumerates exactly what each of the four views returns. It also implicitly separates itself from list_accounts by noting the accounts view is for when a user names a brand rather than an account handle.

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?

Each view is tied to a clear selection condition (default brands, single brand by brand_id, social accounts by brand_id, saved profile context by brand_id), and the accounts view includes an explicit disambiguation rule versus account handles. It stops short of naming sibling tools like manage_brand or list_accounts as alternatives, so routing to non-listing operations is left to inference.

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