Get interpreted brand context

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive semantics. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the output is interpreted/probabilistic rather than factual, and cachedOnly prevents a crawl on a miss. It does not, however, mention auth/profile scoping or quota behavior in a way the schema doesn't already cover.

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 compact sentences, with the important caveat (probabilistic, not verified) front-loaded. The lead phrase 'One Brand Context API request' adds little, but overall the text is tight and free of 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 no output schema, the description should say more about the shape or reliability of what comes back than a single caveat sentence. The account/profile scoping behavior and any quota implications are left to the schema, so the definition is adequate but not complete for a 3-parameter tool with no return contract.

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 domain, account, and cachedOnly in detail. The description's 'Accepts domain/email/URL' and 'cachedOnly avoids crawling a miss' restate the schema rather than adding new semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the resource (Brand Context API) and draws a meaningful line against get_brand by declaring the result is 'probabilistic interpretation, not verified company facts.' The opening 'One Brand Context API request' is somewhat tautological, but the scope and nature of the output are clear.

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 probabilistic-vs-verified framing implies when this is preferable to get_brand, but the guidance is left to inference. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over get_brand, search_brands, or prefetch_brand, so the routing signal is implied rather than stated.

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