List brands

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral context: it lists current active brand, shared brands, and warns about a common misreading of empty brands. It also notes 'free' (cost trait). This exceeds the baseline but isn't exhaustive about return format or error handling.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then usage guidance, then troubleshooting. Every sentence earns its place—no fluff. Capitalization of 'PLUS' and 'SAME' adds emphasis without excess. It is concise despite covering multiple scenarios.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (id+name, active brand, shared brands) and how to use it with use_brand. It includes a troubleshooting tip that addresses a common misinterpretation. For a zero-parameter list tool, this is complete; 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates by indicating what the output contains (id, name, active brand, shared brands), which is helpful even though there is no input schema to document. Since there are no params to explain, this is appropriate.

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 it lists every brand on the account with id and name, the currently active brand, and shared team workspaces. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling use_brand by instructing to call this first, and mentions troubleshooting for misinterpreted empty brands. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Multi-brand accounts: call this, then use_brand to switch' and 'If a brand looks empty... call this first.' This tells the agent exactly when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives, and even explains how shared workspaces are handled. No ambiguity remains.

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