Verify Brand API identity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint:false, covering safety. The description adds that it does not purchase access or expose the key, which provides useful context about side effects and security. It stops short of specifying rate limits or return metadata details, but this is reasonable given no output schema.

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 concise sentences: the first states the action and auth, the second clarifies non-effects. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, auth context, and non-effects. Minor gap: it could mention that it returns viewer metadata, but that is already stated. No major omissions.

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%, and the single parameter 'account' is fully documented with its inheritance behavior. The description does not add further parameter details, but it correctly implies the optional nature via 'selected private Brand API key' and the empty required list. The baseline for 0 required params with high coverage is 4.

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 verb (GET), resource (/v2/viewer), and the exact authentication context (selected private Brand API key). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_brand or search_brands, which operate on brand data rather than identity verification.

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: verifying identity of the currently selected API key. However, it does not explicitly state when to call this versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the auth context.

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