list_brand_protection_matches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List' and describes the item type; it does not mention pagination, filtering, date ranges, account scoping, or what the response contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical 'potential infringements' adds useful meaning. It is concise, though it sacrifices helpful usage and behavior context for brevity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin to be fully actionable. It does not clarify how this endpoint differs from list_brand_protection_logo_matches or describe pagination/filtering behavior, leaving gaps for an agent operating in a large sibling-rich API.

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 schema fully documents the single required parameter account_id with the description 'The account ID', and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that baseline.

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 the operation ('List') and resource ('brand protection matches') and adds the clarifying parenthetical 'potential infringements,' so the return type is clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the similar sibling list_brand_protection_logo_matches, so differentiation is only partial.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many brand-protection list siblings such as list_brand_protection_alerts, list_brand_protection_queries, and list_brand_protection_logo_matches, an agent has no basis to select this endpoint.

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