ikea_category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions it returns one page with real offset/size pagination and sort, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or the response format. Since the description does not go beyond the basic purpose and key-source detail, it falls short for a tool with no 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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose and key capabilities (pagination, sort), and the second explains the category key source. It is front-loaded with the most important information and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with six parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the critical 'category' parameter. However, it does not describe the return format, default parameter values, or how country/language affect results. Given the absence of an output schema, an agent might need more details, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how to derive the 'category' key from various sources and by emphasizing that pagination is 'real' and sortable, which enriches the meaning of offset, size, and sort beyond their schema descriptions. This warrants a 4.

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 clear verb-resource pair: 'Browse an IKEA category' and returns product listings. It is specific about what it does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like ikea_categories or ikea_search. The mention of pagination and sort adds specificity, but without naming alternatives, it scores a 4 rather than a 5.

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 guidance on how to obtain the category key (from URL, category_path, or GET /ikea/categories), which is helpful for parameter selection. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ikea_categories (which likely lists categories) or ikea_search. The usage context is implied but not explicit, earning a 3.

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