suggest_item_categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Suggestion only'. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, including the sampling-capable client requirement and graceful fallback behavior, plus the INVENTORY_R permission. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each subsequent line adds valuable information: the suggestion-only nature, client requirements, and permissions. No wasted words or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, distinction from writes, client capability, and permission. The output schema is present, so return values don't need elaboration. The only minor gap is a slightly vague explanation of the graceful fallback, but overall it's sufficiently complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. While the parameter is simple (optional integer with default 100), the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level explanation, leaving the effect of 'limit' ambiguous (e.g., number of suggestions, sample size).

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 clearly states the tool's function: suggest categories for uncategorized items using the merchant's own taxonomy. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_categories and create_category by emphasizing that it only suggests and does not apply.

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?

Provides clear context: it's for suggesting categories, not applying them (which is a separate write). It also notes requirements like needing a sampling-capable client and INVENTORY_R permission. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools to use when the client lacks sampling capability or when applying categories, so it's not a full exclusionary guide.

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