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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior by specifying the ordering is the website's ordering, counts match the site, and the result is empty when nothing is published. What it omits is the shape of the returned data and whether this is a cached snapshot or live read.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the resource and payload, followed by the one edge case that matters. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 one required enum parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the payload and the empty-result case adequately. It is incomplete on the one thing the schema does not carry: the meaning of the category values and when this tool is the right choice among its siblings.

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% and the single required parameter is never addressed in the description beyond the word "category" in the tool's subject. It does not explain what the six enum values denote, whether unpublished categories return empty, or whether the value is case/slug sensitive, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 published category board: brands ordered as on the website, with the same counts" names a concrete resource and its contents, so an agent knows it retrieves a per-category brand listing with counts rather than a single brand (get_brand) or a category list (list_categories). The retrieval verb is only implicit, but the resource and payload are unambiguous.

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 only implied: you call it for a category to get its published board. No sibling is named as an alternative, and there is no guidance on when to prefer get_brand or list_categories, nor any prerequisite about what "published" means in workflow terms.

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