Get category paths with pagination

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: results are paginated, include post counts, and are sorted in lexicographic order. It omits page-size defaults and any rate/scope limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then use cases, then output/filter behavior. The use-case list ("organization, cleanup, migration planning...") is slightly enumerative but each sentence carries information, so it stays efficient.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: pagination, sort order, returned fields (paths with post counts), and filtering capability. It lacks only edge details such as default page size or maximum results, which is a minor gap given the strong schema.

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%, so all seven parameters including the four filter modes are already documented with examples. The description only restates the filter names (prefix/suffix/match/exact_match) without adding syntax or precedence semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Retrieves category paths in a team") and clarifies the scope with "overall category structure," which an agent can distinguish from a point lookup. However, it never names or contrasts with the closer siblings esa_get_categories or esa_get_top_categories, so an agent still has to open schemas to route correctly.

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?

Lists intended scenarios ("category organization, cleanup, migration planning, or finding similar categories") which implies usage, but gives no explicit when-not conditions and no guidance on choosing this over esa_get_categories or esa_get_top_categories. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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