brand_tracker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety and mutability profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that results aggregate across 100+ graphs plus external sources, but says nothing about output shape, latency, or coverage limits that would go beyond the structured fields.

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 is front-loaded with the usage trigger and packs the capability list efficiently with no filler. It could be marginally tighter, but it wastes nothing.

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?

For a read-only, 8-parameter intelligence tool with no output schema, the definition covers what the tool does but not what the caller receives or how the audiences enumerated in the trigger map to the returned artifacts. Given the annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries parameters, this is adequate but leaves clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters including format modes, graph_ids, and evidence limits. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific activity (auditing brand health, competitive footprint, trend associations, market momentum) and the data sources it draws on (100+ graphs, Google Trends, Wikipedia pageviews), which conveys what the tool produces. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings such as get_domain_intelligence, get_intelligence_dossier, or verify_market_claim, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 'Use when auditing...' clause functions as an explicit usage trigger, which is better than generic guidance. But it names no alternatives and gives no when-not conditions, so an agent cannot tell when a sibling like get_domain_intelligence would be the better pick for an overlapping brand question.

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