suggest_categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that categories are suggested; it says nothing about read-only safety, whether results are ranked, rate limits, or what the response contains.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded, followed immediately by a useful example. No padding or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter suggestion tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete: it omits what the returned suggestions look like, whether the hint is optional, and any usage context relative to the sibling category tools.

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 single optional "hint" parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. It partially compensates by providing an example value ("farola apagada") that illustrates the expected free-text format, but gives no constraints on length, language, or whether the parameter is optional/required.

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 names a verb ("Sugiere") and a resource ("tipos") with a concrete example ("farola apagada"), so the general purpose is inferable. However, "tipos" is vague versus the sibling tools' "categories" terminology (list_categories, get_category), and the description never distinguishes this suggestion behavior from those lookup tools.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The example implies it is meant for free-text hints, but there is no statement about when an agent should call this instead of list_categories or get_category.

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