Get brand

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

With annotations showing readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the safety profile is already disclosed. The description adds 'full details' as a scope, but provides no additional behavioral context such as error handling, auth requirements, or return format. It meets the lower bar for annotation-backed tools but adds only minimal extra transparency.

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 one short sentence ('Get full details for one brand.') that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. It earns its place with clear, specific 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?

For a simple read-by-ID tool with one parameter, high schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description is complete. It states the purpose and scope sufficiently; no output schema exists, but this is a simple operation where the full details are expected to align with similar get_* tools. The context of sibling tools (e.g., list_brands) provides additional disambiguation.

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% (brand_id is documented as 'Brand UUID'), so the schema fully explains the single parameter. The description does not add any semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description 'Get full details for one brand' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from list_brands (which would handle multiple brands) and other get_* tools. It is concise and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for retrieving a single brand's details, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_brands. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative named, relying on the sibling tool name for differentiation.

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