amazon ads get brands

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful operational context by tying the result to campaign/creative setup and warning against fabricating brand IDs, which goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the key usage constraint. Every sentence carries actionable information for an agent.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, full schema description coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations. The description supplies the remaining behavioral guidance about the returned ID and safe usage, so nothing essential is missing.

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% and accountId is thoroughly documented in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It reinforces that the call is scoped to the selected profile, but adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond that.

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 and resource ('List brands') and narrows scope to brands eligible for Sponsored Brands in the selected profile. No sibling tool covers brands, so an agent can distinguish this from campaign, creative, and report tools without checking schemas.

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?

It gives clear downstream context: use the returned brandEntityId in campaign and creative configuration, and never invent a brand ID. That tells the agent when this tool is needed, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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