Brands

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them — cross-script matching (Persian or Latin names) and the fallback that omitting the name lists brands instead of erroring. No rate limits or truncation behavior are mentioned, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the lookup behavior and the downstream chaining are both front-loaded and each sentence carries a distinct 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?

For a simple 2-param read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it returns (brand ids), both invocation modes, and how the result is consumed downstream. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented there, including the Persian/Latin example, so the baseline is 3. The description's added detail (empty query lists first brands) is really mode behavior rather than parameter meaning, and it doesn't explain how 'limit' interacts with the listing mode beyond the schema default.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Find brand ids by name', plus the two operating modes (name lookup vs. listing first brands). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming where the output goes (bm_browse / bm_search as brand_id), so an agent can place it in a workflow immediately.

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 description states the condition under which each mode applies ('when no name is given') and what to do with the result ('Pass the id to bm_browse or bm_search as brand_id'). It stops short of a when-not rule or an alternative lookup path, but the intended usage context is unambiguous.

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