brand_split

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail the annotations cannot: terms match spelling variants as whole words, and level=loose lets a 4+ character term match when glued to neighbours (toyotacamry). That rule is genuinely useful and non-obvious.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, and the core concept is front-loaded. The opening sentence is a bare noun fragment rather than a full statement, which costs a point but is still efficient.

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 values need no prose, but for a 9-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage the description covers only two parameters. Missing date-window, row-cap, source, and search_type semantics leave the agent guessing on the majority of inputs.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does explain brand_terms (comma-separated, multiple scripts/spellings) and the level enum behavior, but leaves days, source, max_rows, search_type, site_url, and start/end_date entirely unexplained. Partial compensation only.

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 opening fragment "Brand vs non-brand traffic" plus the brand_terms guidance makes clear the tool segments traffic into brand and non-brand buckets. The verb is implied rather than stated (splitting/classifying), and no sibling is named for differentiation, keeping it below a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. With 35+ siblings such as query_variants, top_terms, and find_cannibalization, the agent gets no signal about when brand_split is the right pick over those.

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