List brands

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context: the result set is a bounded catalog (~135 entries) whose values are slugs intended as inputs to other tools, which tells the agent how to use the output.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose and scope front-loaded before the usage pointer. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still conveys the shape (names plus slugs) and cardinality. For a zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, 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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional 'query' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about filtering semantics (e.g., that omitting query returns everything), so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the brands MasterKala sells') plus the payload ('with their slugs'), and even quantifies scope ('about 135'). An agent can distinguish this catalog-listing tool from siblings like mk_categories, mk_filters, and mk_browse without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the downstream consumers ('Use to get the brand slug for mk_browse / mk_filters') and gives concrete example values ('anker-fa', 'mcdodo'), which is strong routing guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., when you already hold a slug), so it is not fully exhaustive.

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