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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description adds value by disclosing the response shape: a `howToChoose` rule plus `categories` entries carrying `value`, `label`, `description`, `like`/`examples`, and `notLike`. The 'same list the console shows the developer' note also reassures the agent it is the canonical source.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then usage, then output structure. The field enumeration is dense but every clause carries meaning, and there is no filler. Slightly backtick-heavy but appropriate for the domain.

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 fully carries the burden of explaining return values, enumerating each returned field and its role, plus the selection rule. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result without opening any other artifact.

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 takes zero parameters and the description appropriately does not invent any. It does describe the semantics of the `category` field values it returns (priority order, how to choose, what `like`/`notLike` mean), which is useful context even though it is not an input.

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 resource (the `category` values that update_application_form accepts) and frames it precisely as a read of the categories in priority order with selection guidance. It is easy to distinguish from the writer tool it complements (update_application_form) and from other read tools in the sibling list.

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?

Gives a clear usage condition: 'Read it before setting or changing a game's category', which ties the tool to the mutation flow it supports. It stops short of an explicit exclusion (e.g. when not to call it, or what to do if you already know the value), so it does not reach the full when/when-not/alternative standard.

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