get_browse_nodes

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the output includes 'ancestor chain and direct children for each node', supports 'markdown' and 'json' output, and explicitly excludes 'HTML product-card formats'. It does not address rate limits or pagination, but the bar is lower given strong annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states the function and scope, the second adds a usage tip and a format constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 metadata tool with strong annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it explains the return content (ancestor chain, children, up to 10 IDs), mentions resource options via the sales rank tip, and discloses format limitations. It does not detail every parameter (e.g., languagesOfPreference), but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 75% (three of four parameters have descriptions). The tool description reinforces some parameter semantics ('up to 10 IDs' aligns with browseNodeIds maxItems, and it mentions the supported formats), but it does not explain 'languagesOfPreference', which lacks a schema description. Given the schema still handles most parameter meaning, a 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Returns browse-node metadata (category tree) for up to 10 IDs — ancestor chain and direct children for each node.' This uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('browse-node metadata'), and the scope ('up to 10 IDs', 'ancestor chain and direct children') distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_items or search_items, which serve different purposes.

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 clear context for when to use the tool, including a specific use case: 'Use the `browseNodeInfo.websiteSalesRank` resource to find top-selling categories.' It also gives a when-not constraint: 'HTML product-card formats don't apply here.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions relative to siblings, so it misses the highest bar.

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