list_categories

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

Annotations already establish read-only behavior. The description adds meaningful non-obvious behaviors: results are scoped to the current month, hidden categories are excluded unless include_hidden=true, and search is a substring match on name or group. These are exactly the details an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the outcome and output fields, the second covers filtering and search semantics. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 covers output fields, time scope, hidden-category behavior, and search matching, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, the plan parameter remains underspecified, which is important because all parameters are optional and the description still frames the tool as operating 'in a plan.'

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the semantic burden for parameters. It explains include_hidden and search well, but the plan parameter is only implied by 'in a plan' and does not clarify whether it expects an ID, name, or null/default behavior. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with no required parameters.

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 states a specific action ('List') on a clear resource ('categories in a plan') and enumerates the returned fields. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools that work on plans, accounts, payees, or transactions.

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 clear context for when to use it: any time an agent needs category-level budget/activity/balance data, with explicit notes on filtering. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the strongest possible guidance.

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