Detsky Mir Catalog Categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by explaining that each node carries products_count to assess inventory before fetching, and by disclosing the error format including retryability. It does not add rate limits or other potential side effects, but the existing disclosures are solid and no contradiction exists.

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 well-structured with headers for overview, return format, and error format. It is informative without being bloated; each section serves a purpose. The module docstring reference is slightly tangential but useful context. Overall, it is efficient and easy to scan.

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 the tool's role in the workflow, why it exists (no text search), what the return format looks like, and how errors are surfaced. Since an output schema is present, it need not explain each field; the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most situations.

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 input schema covers all three parameters (limit, parent, region) with descriptive comments, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add new semantic information about these parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It does contextualize the returned alias for detmir_category, but that is about output, not parameter meaning. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb+resource+outcome: 'Browse the Detsky Mir catalog tree and get the aliases detmir_category needs.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling detmir_category by positioning this as the discovery step, and mentions the catalog tree and aliases, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides clear context: 'This is the discovery step' and explains that Detsky Mir has no working text search, so walking the tree is the way to find products. It even names the dependent sibling (detmir_category) and how the output feeds into it. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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