Show Brand

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations do not: the required permission scope ('Read all data') and the delegated-permission mode via the all:delegate_to_contact_permissions scope, which dictates whether a call will be authorized at all.

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 core statement is front-loaded in one clean sentence, but it is followed by a large block of permission boilerplate whose last line ('Read-only account operation.') merely restates the readOnlyHint annotation. The permission detail earns its place; the trailing fragment does not.

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?

For a read tool with full annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, the main remaining gap is that no output schema exists and the description says nothing about what a returned brand contains. Authorization is well covered, but return shape is left entirely 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% and both parameters (brand_id, account) are documented in the schema, including the non-obvious note that account selects credentials rather than a remote ID. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Returns the brand with the given id'), so an agent knows exactly what the call does. It does not differentiate itself from the very similar siblings get_brand_preload, list_brands, or update_brand, which leaves the sibling-selection burden on the name alone.

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 guidance on when to use this rather than list_brands (to enumerate) or update_brand/delete_brand. The description never states prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions beyond the permission scopes.

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