List logics in a category

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the exact return shape (id + title + summary) and the cost/targeting tradeoff versus search_logics. It stops short of saying how large a category listing can be or whether results are truncated.

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?

Three sentences, each doing work: what it returns, when to use it, when not to. The return shape is front-loaded before the routing guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape; with a single fully-documented enum parameter, nothing more is needed on inputs; and the sibling routing is explicit. An agent can call this correctly without opening any other definition.

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% and the single enum parameter is fully documented, including a pointer to list_categories for the valid set. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every logic in one category') and names the projected fields (id + title + summary), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It is clearly distinguishable from search_logics, list_categories, and get_logic.

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?

Gives both directions: use for vague browsing requests or as a fallback when search_logics returns empty, and explicitly not for specific questions where search_logics is 'cheaper and better targeted'. The alternative and the selecting condition are both named.

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