wayfair_category

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

There are no annotations to rely on, so the description carries the burden. It discloses important behaviors: it returns the *product grid*, uses *real page-based pagination*, resolves the category id to Wayfair's canonical URL via the published sitemap, and returns normalized products with name, brand, pricing, and image. This goes beyond what a typical agent could infer from the schema, though it could mention rate limits or failure modes.

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 but dense, front-loading the core function and output, then adding input flexibility and resolution behavior. It uses efficient prose without repetition, and every sentence adds information (output, pagination, input forms, resolution, normalized fields).

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, how pagination works, what inputs are accepted, and how the input is normalized. It's a bit thinner on what 'normalized products' means beyond four fields, but the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('category' and 'page'). The description adds meaningful value by detailing the accepted formats for `category` (bare id, c-prefixed id, slug, full URL) and noting that page is 1-based. However, the description doesn't add substantial extra meaning beyond enriching the `category` parameter; with full schema coverage, this deserves a baseline of 3.

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 tool's verb ('Browse'), resource ('a Wayfair category'), and output scope ('product grid' with normalized products). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wayfair_product and wayfair_categories by explicitly mentioning category browsing, page-based pagination, and the input flexibility from bare IDs to full URLs. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explains the intended use case — browsing a category page's product grid with real pagination — and gives explicit context for when to use it (when you want category products). It also positions itself against related tools, like wayfair_categories (listing categories rather than products) and wayfair_product (a single product). It doesn't explicitly state when *not* to use it or name an alternative, but the context is clear.

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