affiliate_resolve_brand

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return shape ({brand, network, networkBrandId}) and the data source (brands.json), implying a local read operation. It doesn't mention edge cases or error behavior, but for a simple listing tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core functionality, then gives usage context and return format. Every sentence adds meaningful information, making it optimally 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?

Given the tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage timing, return format, and relationship to other tools. It lacks edge-case notes (e.g., empty results or invalid network slug), but is otherwise complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has one `network` parameter with no description, but the description explains it as an optional filter by network slug and provides examples ('Impact', 'Acme'). Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensation is valuable, though it could be more precise about valid slug values.

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 lists logical brands bound in brands.json, optionally filtered by network slug. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from the many per-network advertiser tools in the sibling list. Concrete examples like 'which brands do I have on Impact?' further clarify the exact intent.

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool when the user asks about bound brands, before invoking an advertiser-side tool. It also tells the agent to pair with per-network tools that require the `brand` argument, providing clear when-to-use and integration guidance.

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