url_category_find

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

The description discloses behavioral nuances beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it detects 'pattern issue' mismatches and notes that passing 'device' switches to the PAN-DB category. These add real context. The '[READ-ONLY]' prefix is redundant with the annotation but not contradictory. No rate limits or auth details, but safety is already covered.

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 with no filler. Front-loaded with the read-only note and action verb, and every clause carries distinct information about scope, pattern matching, and device behavior.

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?

For a read-only lookup with annotations covering safety, the description adequately explains purpose, usage timing, and result nature (matching categories, pattern issues, PAN-DB category). It doesn't specify response format, but without an output schema that is acceptable. It could mention preconditions like connectivity, but that's minor.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'device' determines whether the PAN-DB category is included and that 'url' is interpreted against PAN-OS wildcard/prefix rules—details not present in the schema's parameter descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb ('Finds') and resource ('existing custom URL categories... cover a URL'), and distinguishes from siblings like url_category_list, url_category_get, and test_url_category by focusing on coverage, pattern issues, and PAN-DB category with device. It also clearly frames the tool's niche in the workflow.

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?

Gives an explicit directive: 'Run this BEFORE proposing any new URL category,' telling the agent when to use it. It also describes the two checks performed, providing context. However, it doesn't name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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