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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: picklist value sets are hierarchical and fetched one level at a time, and placeholders in the path must be resolved before calling. This helps the agent understand the tool's behavior beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the hierarchical nature and one-level-at-a-time retrieval, and the third gives a concrete placeholder example. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy.

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 parameter, read-only, idempotent), the description covers the essential operational details: when to call it, how the path works, placeholder substitution, and the hierarchical one-level-at-a-time behavior. It does not describe the return shape, but this is somewhat mitigated by the lack of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the tool.

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 already covers the path parameter at 100%, describing it as a 'Fully resolved dot-separated picklist path, with any placeholder already substituted.' The description adds further meaning with a concrete example ('vehicles.car.{make}' → 'vehicles.car.toyota'), clarifying how to construct the path and why substitution matters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the accepted values for an attribute whose get_category entry carries a picklist_path.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling category and listing tools by focusing on picklist value enumeration rather than category retrieval, listing retrieval, or search.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when an attribute's get_category entry includes a picklist_path. It also explains the practical workflow, including that paths are hierarchical and fetched one level at a time. It does not name alternatives explicitly or state when not to use it, but the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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