How much is already held for a category, and therefore whether asking about it is instant and free or slow and expensive. Check this BEFORE starting a report. With no category it lists what is held, so orient here instead of guessing slugs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | The category, for example "running shoes". Omit to list every held category. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: the cost profile of querying a category and the fact that omitting category lists all held categories, which is not visible from annotations alone.
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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core concept first, then the command-like usage guidance, then a practical orientation tip. Every sentence contributes, with no filler or repetition of the schema.
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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, timing, and both invocation modes. The exact output shape is not described, but there is no output schema and the annotations already cover the safety profile, so nothing critical is missing.
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 input schema already describes the single optional category parameter with 100% coverage, including the omission behavior. The description reinforces that omission behavior but does not add meaningful new semantic detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 defines category warmth as how much is already held for a category and explains the practical consequence (instant and free vs. slow and expensive). It clearly frames the tool as a pre-report check, which makes its purpose distinct from siblings like search_evidence or get_receipt.
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 explicitly says to check before starting a report and explains the no-category usage mode as a way to orient rather than guess slugs. It does not name alternative sibling tools or give when-not-to-use exclusions, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool maps to a clearly distinct operation: checking category cache/warmth, comparing ad formats, resolving receipt IDs, and searching the evidence corpus. Even though search_evidence and get_receipt both return evidence, one is query-based and the other is a direct ID lookup, so there is no real ambiguity.
Three tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern: compare_formats, get_receipt, search_evidence. category_warmth is the one outlier as a noun phrase, but it is still descriptive and fits the domain's 'warmth' concept, so the inconsistency is minor.
Four tools is a compact but well-scoped set for an evidence-retrieval/corroboration server. Each tool earns its place: orient, search, compare, and verify. There is no redundant bulk or missing essential operation within the stated purpose.
The read-only evidence domain is covered end to end: category_warmth provides orientation, search_evidence returns corpus results with corroboration status, compare_formats delivers the comparison verdict, and get_receipt lets agents verify the underlying records. The workflow has no obvious dead ends.