top_velocity_brands

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds the velocity metric definition (brand_velocity_90d_units_day) but does not describe output ordering, pagination, or whether results are sorted descending. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity given the 'top' semantics.

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 tightly written: two sentences plus a usage clause. It front-loads the primary purpose, then lists key filters, and ends with concrete use cue. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Despite having 22 parameters and many sibling tools, the description omits the output format (e.g., sorted by velocity descending) and lacks clarification on how 'top' is determined. It also does not mention result limits beyond the schema default. Given the tool's complexity, this leaves the agent with missing context for correct invocation.

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 41%, so the description bears extra responsibility. It explains the meaning of core parameters (scope, category, min_velocity, exclude flags) and clarifies scope values, but does not describe many optional filters like brand_contains, revenue ranges, or churn metrics. The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 finds top brands by 90-day unit velocity and provides concrete example user queries. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on velocity-based ranking, which is not implied by sibling names like 'finder_undercompeted_brands' or 'brands_gaining_sellers'.

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 explicitly lists trigger phrases and specific guidance for setting scope='tracked' when the user says 'my brands'. While it doesn't mention when not to use this tool, the clear user intent mapping provides strong usage guidance.

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