operator_new_brands

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, confirming no side effects. The description adds behavioral context by specifying 'recently started selling' and implying a time-bound query. It does not contradict annotations. For a read-only tool, this is sufficient transparency.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence followed by example queries. Every piece of text is purposeful, with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and then provides usage context, making it highly 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?

The tool has 8 parameters and no output schema. The description states 'Show brands' but does not explain the output structure (e.g., what fields are returned, pagination). For a tool of moderate complexity, additional context about the response format would improve completeness. The description is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 input schema has 63% description coverage, with some parameters like 'brand_contains' and 'first_seen_to' lacking descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter details beyond the schema, e.g., it doesn't clarify the meaning of 'brand_contains' or 'limit'. While the examples hint at usage, the description does not fully compensate for schema gaps. A score of 3 is appropriate given moderate coverage and no additional clarification.

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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Show brands an operator recently started selling.' It provides specific example queries that differentiate it from sibling tools like 'operator_lost_brands' or 'brand_new_asins'. The verb 'show' and resource 'brands an operator recently started selling' are specific and unambiguous.

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 description provides multiple example user queries, effectively guiding the agent on when to invoke this tool (e.g., 'what new brands did this seller pick up'). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools for similar tasks, such as 'operator_new_on_brand' or 'operator_lost_brands'. The context is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

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