Get Category

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns detailed category information including children and attributes, which implies a read-only lookup. It does not describe edge cases, site/account defaulting behavior, or failure modes, though the schema partially covers account and site selection.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by two concrete usage examples. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 simple lookup tool, the description plus the rich input schema and output schema gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly. It states what information is returned and how a category is referenced. The only notable omission is explicit routing guidance toward sibling tools for category browsing or prediction.

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 visible nested schema already documents account, site_id, and category_id with examples and defaults, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description's usage examples add practical context by showing real category IDs like MLA1051 and MLU1000. While the stated coverage signal is 0%, the actual schema text provides the needed parameter guidance.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving detailed information about a single category, including children and attributes. The phrase 'specific category' helps distinguish it from sibling tools like list_categories, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage examples ('Tell me about category MLA1051') show the intended interaction pattern and imply the main use case: querying by a known category ID. However, the description does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or direct the agent to list_categories or predict_category for browsing or inference.

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