list_categories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing operation via the verb 'list' and gives examples of the returned tags, but does not explicitly disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or handling of invalid country codes. This is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded: two sentences state the purpose and parameter format, and one sentence explains downstream usage. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description is complete for this simple tool. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and how the results integrate with five sibling tools, making it clear what the agent can expect and how to use the response.

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 for the only parameter 'country' provides just its name and type. The description compensates by specifying the ISO country code format and giving concrete examples like 'gb', 'us', 'de', thereby adding significant meaning beyond the 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 lists job category tags for a country, with examples like 'it-jobs' and 'sales-jobs'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the source for category tags used by various search and aggregation tools.

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 explains that the returned tags can be passed as the `category` param to search_jobs, salary_histogram, top_companies, regional_data, and historical_salary, giving clear context for when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but the consumer relationships are clear.

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