brand_detail

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, what happens with an unknown slug, auth requirements, or caching. The presence of an output schema relieves it of describing return values, but that is the only gap it does not need to fill.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and key, and the three examples each earn their place by pinning down slug format. Slightly fragmentary grammar, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the definition covers the essentials: what it returns (a brand page) and what the key looks like. The main omission is its relationship to brand_products, which matters given how many sibling tools share this namespace.

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 0% and the single 'slug' property is undocumented in the schema, so the description's examples ('m-budget', 'migros-bio', 'v-love') do real work by showing the lowercase-hyphenated identifier format. It still omits case sensitivity and where an agent should obtain a valid slug.

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 names a specific resource ('Brand page') and a lookup key ('by slug'), and the examples make the domain concrete. But the verb is implicit (fetch/retrieve) and it does not distinguish this from the obvious sibling brand_products, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of when to prefer this over brand_products, product_detail, or search_products, and no stated preconditions. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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