category_resolver

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does well: it reveals the registration gate short-circuit behavior, the quota (1–4 API calls), and that matching is done locally over paged category results. This is meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not cover what happens on no match or ambiguous input.

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: the core purpose appears first, followed by two high-value operational notes (registration gate and quota). Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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 resolver with no output schema, the description conveys the return concept (category ID), the underlying API dependency, a gating edge case, and quota expectations. It is missing only minor details like no-match fallback behavior, but nothing that would prevent an agent from calling it correctly in most situations.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds context for the text parameter ('free-text genre/vibe') but does not elaborate on locale, country, or response_format beyond their schema descriptions, so it meets the baseline but adds little extra semantic value.

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 plainly states a specific verb and resource: it maps free-text genre/vibe to a best-matching browse category ID via fuzzy matching over GET /browse/categories results. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_categories (which lists categories) and get_category (which fetches by ID).

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 input-to-output contract ('Free-text genre/vibe → best-matching browse category ID') gives a clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5, but the use case is strongly implied and unambiguous.

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