list_brand_protection_queries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose pagination behavior, account scoping, authentication requirements, or whether the result set is limited in any way.

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 efficient sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is so brief that it sacrifices useful context that other dimensions would benefit from.

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 list operation with one required parameter and no output schema, the description plus schema provides a minimally viable picture. However, it lacks any mention of pagination, response shape, or the nature of a 'brand protection query', and with no annotations the description alone is somewhat thin.

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%, with account_id already documented as 'The account ID', so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic context about how account_id relates to brand protection queries or whether it is required beyond what the schema already states.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('brand protection queries'), making the basic purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling brand protection list tools, but the resource name is specific enough to avoid tautology.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus other list tools, such as list_brand_protection_alerts, list_brand_protection_matches, or list_cloudforce_one_queries. The description provides no context, exclusions, or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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