arabam_list_brands

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the payload shape (counts and slugs for the entire brand set, no arguments needed), which implies a complete, side-effect-free enumeration, but it never states data freshness, whether counts are site-wide totals, or result ordering/pagination.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core fact (all ~77 brands with counts and slugs) before the actionable parenthetical. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 an output schema present, the description need not document return values, and for a parameterless catalog listing it covers scope and downstream usage adequately. The only minor gap is freshness/ordering of the counts, which mildly matters for an agent deciding whether to trust them.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of slugs is about downstream use, not about any argument.

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?

Names the resource (car brands on arabam.com), the scope (~77, i.e. the full catalog), and exactly what each entry carries: listing counts and URL slugs. An agent can distinguish it immediately from arabam_search, arabam_list_models, and arabam_listing_detail without opening any 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?

The parenthetical gives explicit downstream routing: take the slug and pass it to arabam_search or arabam_list_models, which establishes this as the prerequisite lookup step. It does not state exclusions (e.g. don't call this if you already have a brand slug), so it stops just short of a full when/when-not statement.

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