category_resolver

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well by disclosing the underlying data source, the local fuzzy-match mechanism, a registration-gate short-circuit behavior, and the 1-4 API call quota. It does not explicitly confirm read-only semantics or describe no-match behavior, but the resolver framing and disclosed mechanics give substantial transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by two terse but valuable operational caveats. Each sentence earns its place, though the registration-gate and quota fragments are dense and slightly telegraphic.

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?

The description gives the essential return concept (best-matching category ID), the data source, a failure-mode disclosure, and cost guidance. It does not specify response_format behavior or no-match handling, but the schema covers parameter choices and the resolver's purpose is straightforward enough for an agent to call it 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds mild semantic context by tying the 'text' parameter to free-text genre/vibe, but it does not add meaningful detail about locale, country, or response_format beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific mapping arrow: free-text genre/vibe to best-matching browse category ID, via local fuzzy match over GET /browse/categories results. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_categories or get_category, which retrieve categories directly rather than resolve fuzzy free-text.

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 purpose statement effectively implies when to use the tool: when the agent has free-text genre/vibe input and needs a browse category ID. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the core use case is clear enough to prevent obvious confusion with category listing tools.

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