Check brand names

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it explains the per-name call pattern, that 'no_match' is a normal answer rather than an error, and that non-exact candidates are Google suggestions, not guarantees.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then escalates into return semantics in a logical order. It is slightly longer than necessary and the return-format detail partially overlaps the output schema, but every sentence carries substantive information.

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?

With annotations, a fully covered input schema, and an output schema present, the definition is largely complete. It goes further than required by describing result statuses, which is helpful even if partly redundant with the output schema; the only minor gap is that the per-name API cost implied by the batching is stated but not fully quantified.

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 100% and the schema already documents both parameters, including the 'at most 25 per call' limit. The description adds the rationale (one API prefix resolution per request) but no new syntax or formatting detail, so the baseline 3 for schema-driven parameters 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check a list of brand names against Google's brand knowledge graph') and explicitly frames the batch-triage case versus the single-name resolution done by SuggestBrands, which is a sibling tool. An agent can distinguish this from suggest_brands without opening either schema.

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 states when to use it: 'for the case where a shortlist has to be triaged instead of a single name resolved.' That is a clear when-to-use condition and it implicitly routes the single-name case to the suggest_brands sibling.

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