url_category_get

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

With readOnlyHint and destructiveHint already provided by annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond them: the default search scope across shared and all device groups, and the special meaning of PAN-DB categories in Category Match mode. It is consistent with the annotations and discloses the tool's non-obvious scoping behavior.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The read-only marker and primary action are front-loaded, and the scoping caveat is placed at the end without wasting space.

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 getter with well-documented parameters and safety annotations, the description covers core behavior, special category types, and default search scope. It does not describe the return format or explicitly relate to sibling tools, but these are minor gaps given the surrounding context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the description need not compensate. It adds only a small domain nuance about PAN-DB categories and Category Match; the device_group default behavior is already described in the schema.

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 the verb and resource: it returns the entries of a custom URL category, and adds the useful distinction between URL lists and PAN-DB categories for Category Match. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from similarly named siblings like url_category_list or url_category_find.

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 gives conditional usage context by explaining that shared and every device group are searched unless device_group is set. It does not, however, state when to prefer this tool over its siblings or mention any exclusions, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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