Browse a category

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

Annotations already carry the read-only/idempotent/open-world safety profile, so the description rightly focuses on behavior the annotations do not express: that entries are editions priced in Toman with discount, and the operational nuance that 'no_current_offer: true' usually signals out of stock. This adds real value beyond the structured fields without contradicting them.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then provenance, then output format plus a stock caveat. Mild redundancy exists between the sourcing sentence and the schema's tag_id description, which trims a point, but the structure is tight and front-loaded.

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 read-only browse tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the return shape (editions, price in Toman, discount) and flagging the stock edge case. Required tag_id, pagination, and sort options are all covered by schema or enum, so nothing essential is missing.

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 75% and tag_id already carries provenance text, so the baseline is near the 3 anchor. The description adds concrete example ids that give the abstract tag_id a concrete meaning, but much of the sourcing sentence duplicates the schema's own tag_id description, adding only marginal value.

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 verb 'browse' with the resource 'one iranketab category/genre/list' is specific, and the concrete tag examples (152, 328) anchor the meaning. It is clearly distinct from search-based and similarity-based siblings in spirit, though it never names a sibling to differentiate itself explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 offers genuine routing guidance: tag ids 'come from book_details tags or find_author_publisher_or_tag' and 'confirm with book_editions' for stock. However, it never states when to prefer this over search_books or similar_books, leaving the primary selection criterion implicit rather than explicit.

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