Get Brand Preload

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), it discloses important behavioral nuances: nil primary_color/logo/domain for free-mail domains, Wistia's own domain, feature-flag off, or no Brandfetch data, and that the object is always present with only fields going nil. It also covers token/permission requirements and delegation behavior.

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 description is front-loaded with purpose, then return behavior, then auth requirements, with each block earning its place. The permission boilerplate is somewhat verbose but standard and useful for invocation.

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 compensates by explaining the returned object and its nil-field edge cases, and it documents the authorization requirements. An agent has what it needs to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 the single 'account' parameter is already documented in the schema as selecting credentials. The description adds no further meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a concrete verb and resource: it retrieves Brandfetch-derived brand info for the current account's contact domain plus a boolean about existing brand kits. The scope is narrow and specific (onboarding preload), which implicitly separates it from general brand tools like get_brand, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 gives a usage context ('Used by Glass onboarding to preload the brand kit for new signups on business-email domains'), which implies when the tool applies. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as get_brand or get_brand_kit_colors, and no stated exclusions beyond the internal skip cases.

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