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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'List all' clearly conveys a read-only, non-destructive operation. It enriches context by explaining that the output represents the controlled vocabulary shared across sibling tools, which is useful behavioral context.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action (List), the object (all taxonomy tags), and the purpose (used by other tools). No filler or redundancy.

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 simple parameterless list tool, the description covers the essential scope (types of categories) and the relationship to sibling tools. It could mention the output format (e.g., grouped list or labels), but that is not critical given the low complexity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no schema information to clarify, and the description appropriately does not attempt to invent parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the exact resource: all event category tags, bar/club vibe tags, kid-place categories, and museum types. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning it as the shared taxonomy reference for the other tools.

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 states the taxonomy is 'used by the other tools', implying it is a reference for obtaining valid tag values before using find_bars, find_museums, or search_events. This gives clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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