zalando_category

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that market has no default, that slugs are market-specific and language-dependent, and that results are normalized cards plus total_count. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the schema, though it does not mention pagination or rate limits, which are not critical for basic invocation.

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 front-loaded with the core action and includes no fluff, but the first sentence ('Browse a Zalando category or brand.') is immediately restated by the second sentence ('Browses a Zalando category or brand listing...'), which is a minor redundancy. Overall it is still efficient and well structured.

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 two required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly: it defines the slug format, explains how to source slugs, emphasizes that market is required, and characterizes the return shape relative to zalando-search. It could add pagination details but nothing essential 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 a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds valuable parameter semantics beyond the schema: concrete slug examples, the market-specific/local-language behavior, guidance to get slugs from zalando-categories or a product's url field, and the fact that market is required. This is a solid enhancement without being redundant.

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 Zalando category or brand listing by URL slug'. It also clarifies the output ('same normalized result cards as zalando-search, plus the category's upstream total_count'), which distinguishes it from related tools such as zalando_search and zalando_categories.

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 when-to-use context: pass a category/brand URL slug and a required market. It explicitly points to zalando-categories for discovering slugs, zalando-markets for the storefront list, and notes slugs are market-specific. It does not explicitly say 'use zalando-search instead for free-text queries,' but the comparison to zalando-search implies the boundary.

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