brand_truth_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the different output detail levels (short, medium, full), the default behavior (short), and the tag filter's flexibility (array or comma-separated). It does not mention pagination or latency, but for a list tool the provided behavioral details are solid.

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 dense but efficient, packing purpose, output format details, filtering options, and a usage pointer into two sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and every clause earns its place. Slightly longer than ideal but still concise.

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 list tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is substantially complete: it explains the three detail levels, default behavior, filtering dimensions, and directs to the get tool for full item details. It lacks explicit notes on sorting or pagination, but these are not part of the schema and the essentials are covered.

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 covers all 7 parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by explaining what each detail level returns (e.g., 'short {id,name,type,pinned}') and clarifying the tags parameter's dual array/comma-separated format, which goes beyond the schema's own description.

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 that the tool lists the brand's stored brand truths and defines them as 'atomic facts/observations used to ground generation'. It specifies the verb 'list' and the resource, and differentiates from sibling tools by explaining the output detail levels and the guidance to use a get/view tool for full details on one item.

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 clear context: it's for listing brand truths with optional filters, and explicitly notes that lists default to 'short' and that to zoom into one item you should call the get/view tool with detail='medium' or 'full'. It stops short of naming the exact sibling tool (brand_truth_get), but the guidance is unambiguous enough to steer usage.

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