get_categories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it's a read-only lookup operation that returns category data. It also provides important context about country-specific tags and includes error handling information (rate limits, authentication failures, invalid inputs). However, it doesn't explicitly mention whether this is a safe operation or if it has side effects.

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 well-structured with clear sections (PURPOSE, Args, Returns, Common category tags, Example response, Usage, Errors). However, it's quite lengthy with multiple examples and detailed error information. While informative, some content (like the extensive example response and common category list) could potentially be streamlined.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (country-specific data lookup with sibling tool dependencies), the description provides complete context. It explains the tool's purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, return format, and error conditions. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail, but it still provides helpful examples and context about how to use the returned data.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It provides comprehensive parameter information: explains the 'country' parameter requires ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes, lists all 12 supported country codes, and explains the parameter's purpose in relation to the sibling tool. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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's purpose: 'Get valid job category tags for a specific country.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('valid job category tags'), and scope ('for a specific country'). It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'search_jobs' by stating its purpose is to provide parameter values for that tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this BEFORE search_jobs to get valid 'category' parameter values.' It also specifies constraints: 'Category tags are COUNTRY-SPECIFIC - always use the same country code here as you will in search_jobs.' This clearly defines the tool's role relative to its sibling and establishes prerequisites.

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