Brands

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the workflow hint that returned ids feed tb_search's brand= parameter; it says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering, which is a modest addition over annotations.

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 with zero filler; the scoping statement comes first and the routing guidance second. Both sentences carry distinct information.

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 no output schema, the description does state the return contents (brands plus ids), which is the key detail for a lookup tool. It omits pagination/limit behavior and what happens when a category has no brands, leaving a small but real gap.

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 67%: 'category' and 'search' are documented in the schema, while 'limit' (default 60, max 100) is undocumented in both places. The description adds cross-tool meaning for the returned ids but no syntax or semantics for the parameters themselves, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and scope: all brands of a given category, returned with their ids. It also names the sibling relationship explicitly (tb_search brand=), so an agent can distinguish it from tb_search without opening either 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?

Gives a clear trigger condition ('Use when you know the category and need a brand id') and immediately notes the alternative path ('tb_search also accepts the brand name directly'), which effectively tells the agent when this tool is unnecessary.

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