get_category_tree

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read-only browsing/getting behavior and describes the depth/department navigation model. It does not mention response format or error behavior, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise and well structured, with two sentences that convey purpose, consumers, and navigation workflow without extraneous detail.

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 output schema, the description gives enough context for an agent to select and start using the tool: it names downstream consumers, explains depth/department parameters, and suggests a starting workflow. It could include response shape hints, but this is not critical for initial selection.

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 schema already fully describes both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds workflow semantics by instructing to start at depth 1 and drill into a department by slug, clarifying how the parameters relate to navigation.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool's purpose: browsing Toco's category taxonomy to obtain UUIDs used by three search tools. The verb 'Browse' and resource 'category taxonomy' are specific, and it differentiates from sibling search tools by being the source of their ID parameters.

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?

Provides practical usage context by specifying a workflow: start at depth 1 for departments, then drill into a department by slug. It connects the output to downstream search tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools.

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