oldnavy_category

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the read-only nature through 'Browse' and details what the response contains: subcategory breakdown, normalized product summaries with per-color inventory data, and search facets with live counts. It also discloses the brand-cid coupling constraint. It does not mention error behavior, but the key operational traits are clear.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, cid sourcing, brand selection, and return contents. It front-loads the primary action and then layers necessary operational caveats. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the input schema.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It explains how to obtain the required cid, how to choose the brand, and what the response will contain. Page semantics are already provided by the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 meaning beyond the schema. It explains that cid is an opaque Gap Inc category id assigned by storefront navigation and tells the agent exactly where to find it. It also maps each brand enum value to its storefront and warns that brand must match the cid's source storefront. Only the page parameter gets no additional explanation, which is acceptable.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Browse an Old Navy, Gap, Banana Republic, or Athleta category.' It clarifies it returns a category/browse listing for one cid, and enumerates exactly what is included (subcategory breakdown, normalized product summaries, inventory data, facets). This clearly differentiates it from product, search, and store siblings.

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 concrete usage context: the cid is opaque, should be extracted from storefront category page URLs, and must correspond to the selected brand. It explicitly warns that neither oldnavy-search nor oldnavy-category currently surface a category-id list, which helps agents avoid chasing the wrong source. It does not explicitly contrast with all siblings, but the guidance is sufficient for selecting and invoking this tool.

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