List brands

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds extra value by disclosing the list size (~7000 brands) and recommending paging/filtering strategies. This goes beyond the baseline but doesn't describe all edge cases like default sorting or hidden brand behavior, which is acceptable given 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and then adds behavioral context. Every word earns its place with no redundant phrases, making it highly efficient and easy to scan.

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 list tool with 100% schema coverage, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, output fields, list size, and usage guidance. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it without further clarification.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by connecting `nameContains` to filtering and limit/offset to paging, which clarifies their purpose beyond the schema descriptions. It also ties the output ids to search filter usage, enriching parameter comprehension.

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 brands from oskelly.ru with their numeric ids, URL slugs, and transliterated Russian names, and explicitly mentions the ids are needed for the `brandIds` filter. This differentiates it from sibling list tools (e.g., oskelly_list_conditions) by focusing on brands and their specific output fields.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to obtain brand ids for the `brandIds` search filter. It also gives practical advice on handling the ~7000 brands by filtering with `nameContains` or using limit/offset for paging. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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