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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns 'every active listing category' in a flat structure, including numeric ids, dot-separated paths, and Serbian titles, which the annotations do not convey.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: stating the operation, detailing the output structure, and providing workflow guidance. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and there is no filler.

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 and no parameters, the description fully carries the informational burden. It explains every field returned, the meaning of the dot-separated path, and how to use the result in a multi-step flow. An agent can call this tool and interpret the response correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description has no parameter details to add. The schema already covers everything (vacuously), and the description implicitly confirms that the tool takes no input by focusing entirely on the output.

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 the explicit verb 'List' with the resource 'active listing category' and characterizes the result as a 'flat catalog'. It clearly differentiates itself from get_category by explaining that get_categories provides the category id while get_category covers attribute support.

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 description explicitly instructs to 'Call this first' to convert user intent into a category id, then call get_category for attributes. It not only states when to use the tool but also names the next step and alternative.

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