get_brand_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read operation returning specific fields, and it is transparent about the 'slim summaries' nature, though it doesn't dive into error handling or pagination—which are not critical for this simple getter.

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 two sentences and packs a lot of useful information without fluff. The field list is long but necessary to convey the return shape, and the alternative tool references are valuable. It's slightly dense but still well-structured.

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 simple get tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context about the return value and gives pointers to sibling tools. It covers core fields and mentions counts, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. Minor gaps like auth requirements are not mentioned but are less critical here.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context about the return structure and hints at the level of detail, but it does not substantially elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool gets a brand's profile and enumerates the specific return fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning that full detail is available via dedicated list tools, giving a unique purpose.

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 directs users to use list_themes, list_voices, list_blog_authors, list_posts, or get_brand_members for full detail, making it clear when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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