Search brands

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses real behavioral context: no Brand API Bearer key is sent (auth profile) and the call is a single request with no pagination or retries. That meaningfully extends readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, though it omits anything about result shape or failure modes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and free of padding. The only drag is the cryptic 'native query c' phrase, which is wasted space an agent cannot act on.

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 carry return-value information, but it says nothing about what a search returns or how results are shaped. It covers the request side (single call, no retries) adequately but leaves the response side to inference.

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 both parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's 'by name' and 'selected profile client ID' loosely frame the query and account parameters but add no syntax, format, or matching-rule detail beyond the schema.

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 says 'Search by name', which gives a verb and implies the resource, but never explicitly states it searches brands and instead drops opaque implementation jargon ('in native query c'). It distinguishes itself only implicitly from get_brand, which returns a single brand, rather than spelling out the difference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many siblings such as get_brand, prefetch_brand, or compare_brands. The 'One request; no pagination or retries' line describes behavior rather than guiding tool selection, so an agent gets no routing help.

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