Brands

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's added value is the dual-mode semantics and the 'only watch shops have brands' constraint, which prevents a failed call. It adds no notes on return shape, but an output schema exists so that burden is lifted.

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 conditional structure is front-loaded and each sentence carries information, but the heavy parenthetical nesting makes it denser than it needs to be. Still, no sentence is filler.

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 an output schema present, one optional parameter, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: both modes, the downstream use of the returned brand ids, and the eligibility constraint. Nothing material 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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning beyond the schema by defining what the absence of shop_id returns versus what passing it returns. The schema alone only documents the positive case.

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 states a specific resource (brands) and splits it into two clearly distinguished behaviors based on the presence of shop_id, which an agent can act on directly. It also disambiguates from siblings by pointing at sh_browse and the brand_id filter of sh_search.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use cases ('show me brand X' to find its shop, or to filter a watch shop by brand) and names the concrete alternative tools (sh_browse, sh_search) plus the constraint that only watch shops carry brands. Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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