list_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, yet it discloses nothing about read-only nature, pagination, ordering, or auth requirements. For a list operation these traits matter, and only the vague noun phrase is offered.

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 short phrase, front-loaded with the resource and with no filler. It is efficient, though so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than tight conciseness.

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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the resource and roughly the return fields. It still omits usage context and any behavioral traits, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent choosing among the seven siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. "De un servicio" does map implicitly to the service_id parameter (the service whose categories are returned), and "id + título" hints at the returned fields, but no format, type, or syntax detail is given.

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 the resource ("Categorías de un servicio") and even the return shape ("id + título"), so the agent knows it retrieves categories belonging to a service. However, the verb is only implied by the list_ prefix, and the description never distinguishes it from the sibling suggest_categories, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related suggest_categories alternative. The agent must infer the context entirely from the name.

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