Category Info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only safety profile, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds the domain context (Grand Exchange category) but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like response structure or limits. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences that efficiently state the purpose and provide a key usage pointer. No wasted words, and the most important information is 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 single-parameter, read-only tool, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's function and where to get IDs. The only minor gap is the exact format of 'letter counts' in the response, but given the low complexity, this is a small omission.

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% with a clear parameter description ('Category ID (0-43)'). The description adds extra value by cross-referencing get_all_categories for obtaining valid IDs, which goes beyond the schema and helps the agent source the parameter correctly.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Get letter counts for a Grand Exchange category.' It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on letter counts and explicitly points to get_all_categories for IDs, differentiating from that sibling.

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 provides explicit guidance to 'Use get_all_categories for IDs,' which is a clear alternative for a prerequisite. This helps the agent know when not to use this tool for obtaining IDs, adding valuable usage context.

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