Detsky Mir Category Listing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these: it is a 'real JSON endpoint with proper pagination and an upstream total', empty pages are reported via meta.warnings, and error format includes retryable indication. 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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a 'why' paragraph, and dedicated Return Format / Error Format sections. Every sentence adds value; it is detailed without being bloated. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

For a tool with pagination, region handling, and error reporting, the description covers all essentials: return format with key fields, relationship to detmir_card, empty-page behavior, and error format with retryable indicator. An output schema exists, so the description does not need to enumerate every field, but it provides enough context for correct usage.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds only minor context (e.g., alias example 'pups', region default to DETMIR_REGION) but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 'List products in a Detsky Mir category, with the total match count' — a specific verb+resource+scope. It further distinguishes itself from text search by calling itself 'the reliable way to enumerate the catalog', separating it from sibling tools like detmir_categories (category listing) and detmir_card (product details).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'This is the reliable way to enumerate the catalog' and contrasts with text search. It also clarifies pagination behavior and that an empty page is not an error, guiding the caller on how to interpret results.

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