sephora_category

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does a solid job: it states pagination ('Returns one page'), tells the user an unrecognized slug returns 404, and clarifies slug formatting. Combined with the schema's parameter descriptions, this gives a clear security and behavior model. It stops short of describing the response shape, but that is a minor omission for a listing tool.

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 three tightly scoped sentences: purpose, filter parity, and slug format. It front-loads the primary action and every sentence earns its place without redundant filler.

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 category-browse tool with nine parameters, the description plus 100%-coverage schema is sufficient for invoking the tool correctly. The 404 behavior and slug construction are the most important context outside the schema, and both are present. Detailed response fields are not covered, but the no-output-schema case is handled well given the listing's simplicity.

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%, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining that slug is 'the path segment after sephora.com/shop/' with the example 'makeup-cosmetics', which helps an agent construct valid input. The rest of the parameters are already well-documented 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Returns one page of a Sephora category/browse listing' with concrete examples like Makeup and Skincare. It also distinguishes this browse tool from related tools like sephora_search by noting it uses the same sort and facet filters but operates on category slugs.

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 implies its use case via 'category/browse listing' and explains how to construct the required slug, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over /sephora/search or when not to use it. The mention of parity with sephora/search filters provides context but not explicit routing guidance.

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