Browse a brand

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the useful behavioral detail about brand IDs coming from a facet, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination behavior or how results are ordered by default. With annotation coverage, this is acceptable but adds only minimal extra context.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose ('List products from one brand') and immediately followed by the most critical usage context. There is no wordiness or repetition; every sentence 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?

Despite having 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description fills the one key gap: where to obtain brand_id. The return format is implied for a list-products tool and not a major omission, so this is adequately complete for the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter's meaning and constraints. The description adds a small hint about brand_id ('Brand ids come from the `bra` facet...') but does not enrich the semantics of the other parameters. This matches the baseline of 3 when the schema is self-sufficient.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List products from one brand.' This uses a specific verb (List) and resource (products) with a clear scope (one brand), distinguishing it from sibling tools like galaxus_browse_category (which lists by category) and galaxus_search (which is broader). It also gives a concrete hint about where to obtain brand IDs.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool by explaining that brand IDs come from the `bra` facet of `galaxus_search` or `galaxus_browse_category`. This implicitly indicates a prerequisite workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., 'use search for keyword queries'), so it falls short of a 5.

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