browse_category

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the return format (JSON with listings) and implies pagination via the 'page' parameter. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or explicitly state that the operation is read-only, though the term 'browse' implicitly conveys this.

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 organized into Args and Returns sections, with each parameter explained concisely. The bilingual repetition (Mongolian and English) adds slight redundancy but is not excessive. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose statement.

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 presence of an output schema, the return value is already covered, so the description need not explain it in detail. The tool is simple and the description provides category keys, subcategory guidance, and pagination. Usage guidelines could be more explicit, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a browse tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and no enums, so the description compensates well. It lists all valid category keys, provides a concrete subcategory example (vehicles → cars_for_sale, car_parts), and specifies the page default. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 the tool's function: 'Browse listings in a specific category on unegui.mn.' The verb 'browse' plus resource 'listings in a specific category' precisely defines the scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_listings or list_categories.

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 some usage guidance by referencing list_categories for obtaining subcategory keys, but it does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like search_listings or get_recent_listings. The context is clear but exclusions are missing.

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