Search business categories

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail about the taxonomy's downstream use and the additional data returned by view=FULL, going beyond what annotations convey without contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause provides useful context—usage, parameter effects, and relationships to sibling operations. No wasted words.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description outlines the primary returned fields (name, displayName, serviceTypes, moreHoursTypes) and explains how the taxonomy connects to other functions. It sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and behavior for an agent to invoke it 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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds contextual meaning by explaining that filter narrows by display name and that category names are used as identifiers in other tools, providing value beyond raw parameter definitions.

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 specific verbs ('Lists/searches') and a clear resource ('the reference taxonomy of business categories'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_locations or list_attribute_metadata. The example 'gcid:restaurant' and the connection to other tools clarify its role.

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 implicitly guides when to use the tool by stating that category names feed location.categories and categoryName, and explains how view and filter parameters affect results. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' but provides clear contextual alignment with related operations.

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