list_brand_protection_logo_matches

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List', implying a read operation, but does not disclose pagination, scoping beyond the required account_id, result ordering, or whether any filtering or side effects exist. This is minimal coverage for a tool with no annotation support.

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 very short and front-loaded, making it easy to parse. However, it essentially restates the tool name and provides no explanatory value beyond that, so it is more under-specified than effectively concise.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is not entirely inadequate, but with no annotations and no output schema it should explain what a logo match is, how account_id is used, and what the response will contain. The current text leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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% for the single account_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how account_id relates to logo matches, but the schema already documents the parameter. It is adequate but not enriched.

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 a specific verb ('List') and a resource ('brand protection logo matches'), which identifies the operation reasonably well. However, it does little to differentiate this from the sibling list_brand_protection_matches beyond relying on the word 'logo' in the name.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_brand_protection_matches or list_brand_protection_logos. The intended use is only implied by the operation name, with no mention of prerequisites, filters, or exclusions.

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