browse_category

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the absence of a 2000-result cap and the fact that `has_more` is the site's own next-page flag rather than a computed one.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by return-field parity and pagination semantics. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return values, and cross-referencing search_products for item fields plus explaining `has_more` covers the key operational questions. Minor gaps remain, such as explicit guidance on how deeply to page through results.

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 coverage is 100%, so many parameters are already documented; the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning the schema does not: price filtering and price sorting operate on the GUEST price window, which is a non-obvious semantic distinction for price_min/price_max/sort.

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+resource ('List a goldapple.ru category page') and immediately scopes it with sorting and the guest-price window. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search_products by noting the difference in result capping, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

'Unlike search, a category is not capped at 2000 results' gives a clear condition that selects this tool over search_products, and 'Items have the same fields as search_products' sets expectations. There is no explicit when-not-to-use statement, so it falls just 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.