GetProductCategoriesId

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieval and optional expansions/field selection, which hints at read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly state whether this is a safe read operation, what permissions are required, or how errors are handled. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding behavioral traits like rate limits or response format.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds key optional functionalities. It's front-loaded with the primary action and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It hints at some parameter usage but lacks details on required vs. optional parameters, error conditions, return values, or behavioral constraints. For a retrieval tool with multiple options, this leaves too much undefined for reliable agent use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'expand the product category's relations' (hinting at 'include_ancestors_tree' and 'include_descendants_tree') and 'select the fields that should be returned' (hinting at 'fields'), but doesn't explain the 'id' parameter or provide specifics on syntax, formats, or defaults. This adds some meaning but insufficiently covers the 4 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 clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('product category by its ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'GetProductCategories' (which presumably lists categories) by specifying retrieval of a single category via ID. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other ID-based tools like 'GetProductsId' or 'GetCollectionsId', so it's not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 implies usage when you need a specific product category by ID, as opposed to listing all categories with 'GetProductCategories'. It mentions optional expansions and field selection, suggesting when to use those features. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool (e.g., vs. other ID-based retrievals) or clear alternatives, leaving some context to inference.

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