get_expansion_pipeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the output is ranked and that customer-facing output is scrubbed of internal fields, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention side effects, authorization, or any other operational traits; as a read-style tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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 sentence with no wasted words, and the core resource phrase is front-loaded. It loses one point because the noun-phrase structure is slightly less actionable than a clear verb-led instruction.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity—one optional enum parameter and an output schema present—the description is mostly adequate. It communicates the core product and the customer-scrubbing behavior, but lacks any usage context or sibling differentiation that would help an agent decide when to invoke it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at the audience parameter by saying the pipeline is 'scrubbed of internal fields for customer,' implying the customer variant differs from internal. But it never names the parameter or explicitly explains the internal/customer distinction, leaving part of the semantic burden on the enum labels alone.

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 identifies a specific resource ('ranked brand expansion pipeline') and adds a scoping detail ('scrubbed of internal fields for customer'). The name's 'get' verb conveys retrieval, and the resource is distinct from siblings like get_risks and get_next_actions. It falls short of a 5 because it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit action statement.

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 its siblings, and no conditions or exclusions are stated. The audience default is discoverable from the schema, but the description does not explain when the internal vs. customer variant is appropriate.

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