list_categories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON with bilingual names) and the default language (Mongolian), adding useful behavioral context. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but 'list' makes that obvious, and no side effects or limitations need to be disclosed for such a simple operation.

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 concise and well-structured: the action is stated in the first line, followed by the return format in a separate 'Returns' section. Every sentence is purposeful, with no waste.

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 zero-parameter tool that lists categories, the description is complete. It states the scope (all categories and subcategories), the platform, and the output format. The presence of an output schema covers the return value structure, so no further detail is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides full coverage. The description adds value by noting the output language details, which is beyond the empty schema and helps the agent interpret results.

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 'List all available categories and subcategories on unegui.mn', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browse_category or search_listings by focusing solely on the category hierarchy.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there exclusions mentioned. The name and description imply it should be used when the agent needs the full list of categories, but this is not spelled out, leaving usage merely implied.

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