Browse Catalogue Items

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

With readOnlyHint=true annotation, the safety profile is already clear. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies that this tool is for browsing (not searching) and specifies the alpha parameter's special '#' behavior for numeric names. This adds meaningful behavioral nuance.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence earns its place: first states what it does, second explicitly contrasts with an alternative, third gives a usage rule. No fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, simple browse operation) and the presence of a full input schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and a critical parameter special case. No output schema is present, but return values are implicitly a list of catalogue items, which is sufficient.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining that '#' can be used for numeric names in the alpha parameter, which is a valuable semantic detail not present in the schema itself. This lifts it above baseline.

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 uses a specific verb 'Browse' with a clear resource ('Grand Exchange catalogue') and scope ('by category and starting letter'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tool lookup_item, making it unambiguous which tool to select.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'This is NOT a name search — use lookup_item for that.' It also provides the special rule for numeric names ('Use #'), giving clear context for correct invocation.

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