Find categories

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint: it warns that matches always come back as candidates because names and slugs collide, and that only the numeric ID is authoritative. This is valuable context that prevents an agent from assuming a single, clean match.

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?

Two tightly worded sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds only the essential caveat about collisions and ID authority. Every clause earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup tool with a full input schema, an output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the key operational caveat an agent needs. Nothing important is missing for correct invocation and interpretation.

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%, and the query parameter is already well described as a German category name with optional parent qualification. The tool description adds general context about ambiguity but does not add new parameter-level details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: finding category IDs by name. The follow-up sentence explains the result shape (candidates) and the unique identifier, distinguishing this from sibling find tools operating on locations and shops.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you have a category name and need the corresponding numeric category ID. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so the guidance remains implicit rather than directive.

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