get_food_categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, establishing the tool as a safe, read-only operation. The description adds one behavioral trait: it is 'Premier exclusive,' which tells the agent that access is restricted. However, it does not describe whether results are cached, the effect of region/language parameters, or error behavior for non-Premier users. With annotations covering the core safety profile, the description adds minimal additional behavioral context.

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 extremely concise, with only two sentences: one stating purpose and one adding a restriction. No words are wasted, and the key action is front-loaded. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing important parameter clarifications, which is a trade-off that prevents a perfect score.

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 tool with two unexplained parameters, no output schema, and minimal description, the contextual completeness is low. The description does not mention filtering behavior, expected output format, or how region/language should be used. While annotations cover safety, the description fails to bridge the gap for the agent to correctly invoke the tool, especially given the presence of region and language fields that likely narrow the 'full list' mentioned.

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 input schema has two parameters (region, language) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema itself provides no meaning. The description says 'Get the full list of food categories,' which suggests no filtering, yet the parameters imply potential filtering by region and language. The description does not explain what these parameters do or how they affect the result, failing to compensate for the schema gap. An agent cannot infer correct usage from this description alone.

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 gets 'the full list of food categories,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It also adds 'Premier exclusive' to indicate scope. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like get_food_sub_categories, the 'full list' wording implicitly distinguishes it from subcategories. However, it could be more explicit about what this tool does versus related 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_food_sub_categories, search_foods, or get_food. It only mentions a 'Premier exclusive' restriction, which is a prerequisite but not a usage comparison. There is no discussion of context, prerequisites (beyond Premier), or when not to use this tool.

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