jcrew_category

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well. It reveals page size limits (60 products), default values for site and page, the meaning of result_count as the upstream true total, and the important edge case that hub-level categories return a well-formed empty result rather than an error. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 efficiently organized. Purpose is front-loaded, each parameter gets a targeted explanation, and the edge-case behavior is stated in one final sentence. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers invocation, parameter semantics, defaults, pagination limits, and a notable edge case. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the exact structure of returned product data, but for a listing tool with no output schema this is a small omission.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial context: the exact format for category (path segment after /plp/), a concrete example, a pointer to jcrew-categories for valid values, explicit defaults for site and page, and the SFCC-native page semantics. This goes well beyond the schema 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Browse a J.Crew or J.Crew Factory category' and immediately specifies what is returned: 'one page (up to 60 products)'. It clearly distinguishes itself from jcrew-categories by telling the agent to use that sibling for discovering valid category values instead of guessing.

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 clearly establishes when to use this tool: to browse a category listing. It also gives explicit alternative guidance: 'use jcrew-categories to discover every valid value instead of guessing from storefront URLs'. It doesn't mention product-level or search alternatives, but the category-browsing context is clear enough for tool selection.

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