get_annual_categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the data source (official public read-only API), the personal non-commercial license constraint, that nominee details are hydrated lazily, and that media URLs are reference-only with nothing downloaded. That last point usefully tells the agent no files land on disk.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the payload, followed by two short caveats. The licensing and media-URL clauses are slightly tangential to calling the tool, but they are each one clause and carry real constraint information.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description still conveys the return shape (categories plus nominee counts) and the lazy-hydration behavior for nominee details. It doesn't say whether counts span all years or the current edition, a minor gap for a list tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless enumeration.

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 the official Awwwards Annual Awards categories, with examples (Site of the Year, Agency of the Year) and the returned attribute (nominee counts). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list_categories or get_annual_nominees, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus list_categories (the non-annual sibling) or get_annual_nominees (the obvious follow-on call). The only conditional content is a licensing note, which doesn't help tool selection.

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