Get category attributes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds value by detailing what is returned (input_type, options, required status) and linking to the HTTP endpoint. No contradictions; the description complements the annotations well.

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, front-loaded with the core functionality and endpoint, followed by a contextual note about listing creation. No unnecessary words, every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the return structure (input_type, options, required) and explicitly links the tool's output to the workflow of creating a listing. No gaps are present.

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 input schema covers the single parameter 'id' with a description ('Category id') and constraints (exclusiveMinimum:0). Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description does not repeat parameter info but adds context about why the parameter matters (listing creation), which is helpful but not essential. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns attributes for a category including input_type, options, and required status. It distinguishes effectively from sibling tools like get_category (returns category details) and get_category_children (returns children). The verb 'Return' and resource 'attributes for a category' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when needing to know category attributes for creating a listing ('These define the `attributes` you can set when creating a listing in this category'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions or prerequisites. This leaves room for confusion among the many sibling tools.

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