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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the vocabularies are normalized and include aliases, but does not disclose response format, caching, or other behavioral details beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the resource being described. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by including a clear verb or explicit 'use this to' phrasing.

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?

The tool is simple (2 optional parameters) and has an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. However, with 0% parameter description coverage, the description should compensate more for the missing query and category semantics; it only partially covers category values.

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 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It lists seven of the eight category enum values (omitting pricing_models) but says nothing about the query parameter or the category filter itself, leaving significant gaps.

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 clearly identifies the resource as normalized vocabularies with aliases across several domains, giving a specific sense of what the tool returns. However, it lacks a direct verb and does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_gtm_data_domains or get_gtm_marketplace_categories.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'so filters and tags line up across jobs, tools, agencies and resources', suggesting it's for aligning filter values. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and alternatives are not mentioned.

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