Prefetch a brand

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description materially adds to that by disclosing the external side effect (provider crawl enqueue), the exact return codes (200 indexed / 202 queued), and explicit non-behaviors ('never poll, purchase or resubmit automatically').

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?

Three terse sentences with no filler, and the triggering condition and constraints are front-loaded. It is slightly telegraphic, but every clause carries 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 and a non-idempotent, destructive external action, the return-code note helps fill the response gap. Still missing are the consequence of a queued (202) result for the caller and any mention of the account profile requirement, both of which an agent needs at call time.

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 75%, which already documents account, confirm, identifier and identifier_type. The description only echoes two of these ('explicitly confirmed' for confirm, 'generic or domain route only' for the enum), adding marginal value beyond the schema rather than compensating for the missing remainder.

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 states a specific action ('can enqueue a provider crawl') and scope ('generic or domain route only'), and ties itself to a HEAD request. However, it never plainly says it warms/prefetches a brand record and does not contrast itself with siblings like get_brand or get_brand_context, so an agent must infer the relationship between 'prefetch' and 'enqueue a crawl'.

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?

It implies usage via 'explicitly confirmed' (linking to the confirm parameter) and constrains routing with 'generic or domain route only', plus a caution against polling/purchasing/resubmitting. But it never says when to choose this over get_brand or search_brands, so the alternative selection is left to inference.

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