fred_category_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the return type (dict with key 'categories') without mentioning whether it's a read-only operation, any side effects, or dependencies. This is insufficient for safe tool invocation.

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 short and front-loaded, with two sentences covering purpose and return type. However, it could be slightly more informative without being verbose, e.g., by acknowledging the realtime parameters.

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 having an output schema, the description omits parameter semantics and usage context. The tool has three parameters with no documentation, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly without additional knowledge.

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 0%, yet the description provides no information about the three parameters (category_id, realtime_start, realtime_end). The agent gets no guidance on valid values or format, relying solely on the schema which lacks descriptions.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('related categories for a FRED category'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools such as fred_category (the category itself) and fred_category_children (hierarchical children).

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 implies usage by its name and purpose but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fred_category_children or fred_category_tags. No exclusion criteria or contexts are mentioned.

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