Suggest brand names

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) but say nothing about execution model. The description adds a crucial trait the annotations omit: this is asynchronous ('start a background job') and results must be retrieved by polling get_job. It does not restate the idempotency signal, but that is documented in the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by the operational follow-up. Every clause carries load (purpose, workflow position, polling, user confirmation) with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by telling the agent where results come from (poll get_job) and what to do with them (confirm with the user). The main gap is that the non-required parameters (country, enteredBrandNames) are left unexplained in a 6-param call.

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 only 33% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It implies name and websiteDomains are inputs ('from its name and website') but never explains country, organizationId, requestId, or enteredBrandNames, leaving over half the parameters undocumented in either place.

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 and resource: 'Start a background job that proposes the names a brand is mentioned by, from its name and website.' It further pins the tool's place in the workflow ('first step of setting up a project, before it exists'), which distinguishes it from siblings like discover_brands and create_project.

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?

Explicit sequencing guidance: use this before the project exists, then 'Poll get_job for the result' and 'confirm the names with the user before create_project.' It names the dependent tool (get_job) and the downstream tool (create_project), leaving nothing to inference.

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