list_by_category

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that this is a read-only listing ('조회합니다') scoped to a category with popular/price ordering. However, it does not clarify output shape, default sorting behavior, or pagination, leaving those to schema defaults.

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?

One compact sentence in Korean, front-loaded with the action and scope, no redundant phrases or filler. It 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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out any statement about when to choose list_by_category over search_parts/find_lowest_price, and does not hint at result granularity beyond 'list'. Adequate for basic invocation, but not complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a description plus defaults/enums; the baseline is 3. The description adds no independent parameter semantics beyond noting 'popular/lowest-price', which mirrors sortBy values, so no additional value.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('조회합니다' = retrieves) and names a precise resource: a PC-part list grouped by category with popular/lowest-price ordering. This semantic scope ('카테고리별', '인기/최저가') clearly separates it from siblings like get_product_detail (single item) and search_parts (keyword-based search).

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 category and sorting context ('by category', 'popular/lowest-price') implies this tool is for browsing parts by category, but it gives no explicit when-to-use instruction and never names alternatives or exclusions relative to search_parts/find_lowest_price. This is implied usage, not explicit guidance.

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