list_categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that categories are derived from ten_year_plan_category + sponsor_agency + fms-id prefix, and explicitly states what they are NOT based on (managing_agency or project name). This adds useful behavioral context beyond a simple list.

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, front-loading the output and then providing usage and derivation. Every sentence is informative with no waste.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the output (categories with counts and total budget), how to use the result (filter for rank_projects), and the derivation logic. No missing information.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description needs to add no parameter info. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adequately explains the output without needing to elaborate on inputs.

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 tool lists program/facility categories with budget-line counts and total budget, with examples. It distinguishes itself by explaining how categories are derived and that they serve as filter values for rank_projects, differentiating from sibling tools.

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 tells when to use this tool (to retrieve categories with budget stats) and how to use its output (as a filter on rank_projects). It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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