list_brands

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the default return fields ('id+name+website'), the effect of detail levels, and hints at the read-only nature of listing. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but for a straightforward list operation, this is adequate and adds value.

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 three concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, default return behavior, and cross-reference to the alternative tool. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the default return, the parameter options, and directs to get_brand_info for deep dives. No critical information is missing for an agent to effectively select and invoke the tool.

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 already provides 100% coverage of the detail parameter with descriptive enum values, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds extra clarity by mapping 'short' to id+name+website and instructing when to use medium/full, which reinforces the parameter semantics. There is a slight mismatch with the schema's description (primary label+status vs name+website), but it doesn't negate the added value.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource 'all brands on your PostKing account'. It distinguishes itself from sibling get_brand_info by explicitly framing the latter as the tool for zooming into a single brand, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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 explicit usage guidance: it explains when to use this list tool versus get_brand_info, and instructs how to adjust the detail parameter for different verbosity needs. This clearly tells the agent how to choose between this tool and alternatives.

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