get_event_categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by describing the shape of each returned item (subcategories and supported frequency filters) and the intended downstream call, which tells the agent how the result plugs into the workflow.

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?

Three short sentences with zero padding; the core purpose is front-loaded and the follow-up action is stated last. Every sentence carries information.

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 zero-argument enumeration tool with an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description supplies everything needed: what it returns, that it is safe/read-only, and where to go next. No material gap remains.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's only parameter-relevant content is describing how values returned here feed get_event_summary's `category`/`subcategory` inputs, which is contextual rather than a gap.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List the categories for browsing event contracts'), scopes it to prediction markets, and implicitly separates it from get_event_summary, which handles the events themselves. An agent can tell immediately this is the enumeration/entry-point call.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent forward: 'Pass a returned `category` (and optionally `subcategory`) to get_event_summary'. That is clear next-step guidance. It does not state when not to use this tool or any prerequisites (e.g. needing setup/auth first), so it stops short of a 5.

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