Suggest brands

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it discloses the return payload (ID, display name, state, URLs), explains that the ID is a Commercial Knowledge Graph ID, and clarifies the purpose of selected_brand_ids as keeping picked brands in the set.

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 supporting detail in descending importance. Slightly padded by the API docs URL and a repeated restatement of the brand-criteria/ID relationship, but nothing is misleading or wasted at length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly required, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description nonetheless covers the resolve-then-use-in-brand-list workflow adequately; only pagination/result-count behavior and any ambiguity-handling for fuzzy matches are left unstated.

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, but the description goes beyond it: it explains that selected_brand_ids are Commercial Knowledge Graph MIDs that must be handed back so Google retains them while the prefix narrows, and it gives concrete free-text examples for brand_prefix. This is genuine added meaning over the schema text.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Resolve a brand name to the brands Google recognizes for it,' with the concrete operation (BrandSuggestionService.SuggestBrands) and returned fields named. It implicitly separates itself from brand-list readers (get_brand_list_brands) by stating the resolved ID is what brand lists target, but it never names a sibling directly.

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?

Clear context is given: a free-text name must be resolved here before it can go into a brand list, which situates the tool in the brand-list workflow. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative (e.g. check_brand_names vs this tool) is offered.

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