Browse a Galaxus category

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value (products plus facets) and pagination via nextCursor, which is useful behavioral context. It does not mention potential side effects (though it's clearly read-only) or any constraints like case sensitivity or error handling, but the disclosed behavior is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the key return value. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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 the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview: it explains the main input (category name), the return payload (products and facets), and pagination (nextCursor). It could additionally mention that filters are available via brand and price parameters, but those are already in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool 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 86% (6 of 7 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema for parameters; it mentions 'sorted and filterable' but does not elaborate on individual parameters like brand or price filters, which the schema already documents.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Browse products in a category by name') and provides concrete examples. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like search_products (full-text search) and get_product (single product), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage is implied: use it when you want to browse a category by name. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer for other scenarios, such as general search or comparing products.

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