Browse DNS category

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond that: slug resolution through a fallback search and category-scoped sort behavior. It does not mention every behavioral nuance such as pagination or response shape, but the annotations carry the safety profile.

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, each earning its place: the core purpose, the slug guidance with aliases, and the category-scoped sort warning. The most important information is front-loaded, with no filler 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 read-only category browsing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential invocation context: how to reference a category correctly, that aliases may be resolved, and that sort is scoped to the category. It leans on the schema for pagination and filtering fields; those are legible enough. It is not a 5 because the response payload is never characterized, leaving some uncertainty despite the compact/rich schema hints.

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 low (38%), and the description does partially compensate by clarifying the category parameter format and the meaning of sort=price_desc within a category. However, page, limit, priceMin, and priceMax still lack meaningful semantic guidance beyond their names and schema defaults, so it does not fully cover the parameter space.

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 opens with 'Products inside a category,' which clearly identifies the resource and scope. It references dns_list_categories for slug sourcing, making the tool's role distinct enough without an explicit comparison to every sibling. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly differentiate from related browsing tools like dns_brand_catalog or dns_search.

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 description gives practical guidance: prefer the slug returned by dns_list_categories, know that short aliases resolve through search fallback, and understand that sort=price_desc is category-scoped. This is clear contextual usage advice, though it does not state when not to use this tool or name alternatives explicitly.

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