Detsky Mir Category Listing

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint already declare a safe, repeatable read), the description discloses behavioral traits the agent could not infer: proper pagination with an upstream total count, JSON output rather than scraping, and the non-obvious rule that an empty page is not an error but surfaces via meta.warnings. That last point is genuinely valuable for error handling; only auth/rate-limit context is absent.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then the differentiator, then the edge-case warning, then a pointer to the guide resource — a sensible ordering. The middle sentence is slightly discursive ("so it supports 'what's available and how much does it cost' without scraping") but each sentence still carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description correctly avoids explaining return shapes, yet it still flags the two things an agent most needs to know about the response: the upstream total and the meta.warnings channel for empty pages. With full schema coverage and a guide:// resource for field lists and error codes, this is close to complete for a four-parameter read tool.

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 100%, so alias, limit, offset and region are all documented in the schema itself, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds only an indirect hint about pagination behavior and never elaborates on alias format, the region default source, or limit ceilings, so it adds little meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 and resource ("List products in a Detsky Mir category") plus a scope note about the total match count, which immediately separates it from detmir_card and detmir_categories. It implicitly contrasts itself with text search but never names an actual sibling tool such as detmir_categories or a detmir_search equivalent, so the differentiation is generic rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a clear positive selection rule: use this instead of text search to enumerate the catalog with real pagination and an upstream total, framed around the "what's available and how much does it cost" use case. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. when to prefer detmir_categories to find the alias first, or when a card lookup is better), so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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