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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (returning field names and reasons) and the conditional scope (full vs. category). It does not mention error handling, response format, or any side effects, but for a read-only schema retrieval tool this is minimally adequate.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the key action, and no filler words. Every phrase contributes information: what is returned, the format (field names + reasons), and the optional scope.

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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter effect. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly. Slightly more detail about return structure or defaults could push it to 5, but not necessary.

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 schema describes the category parameter only as 'Optional category id.' The description adds meaning by explaining that omitting it returns the full schema and including it returns one category's schema. This clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's brief label.

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 ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('full registry schema or one category'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_company (which returns company data) and list_categories (which lists categories) by focusing on schema metadata with field names and buyer reasons.

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?

The phrase 'full registry schema or one category' implies the optional category parameter and suggests when to use this tool (when you need schema structure). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternative tools (e.g., list_categories for just category names). Usage guidance is implied but not explicit.

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