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

Annotations already indicate it is read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful context: Romanian display names, default alert lead times, and that custom categories can be added. No contradictions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value (examples, lead times, customizability). Slightly long for a simple tool, but efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, rich annotations), the description covers purpose, examples, and behavioral traits adequately. It doesn't specify return format but that's acceptable.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the 'group' parameter. The description adds semantic value by listing examples of categories under each group (e.g., vehicles: ITP, RCA), enriching the enum understanding.

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 states it lists all document/obligation categories Avizo tracks, with examples grouped. The title reinforces this. It distinguishes from sibling tools like avizo_docs which deal with documents, not 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It is implied as a category listing tool, but lacks 'use this if you need category metadata' or 'for documents use avizo_docs' style direction.

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