provider_query_rights_categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The one real addition is the visibility scoping to the current user's rights, which is genuinely useful behavior context, but pagination behavior and result volume are unaddressed.

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 same statement is repeated three times ('Get a list of Rights Categories visible to the logged in user' / 'Get list of Rights Categories' / 'GET /cloudapi/1.0.0/rightsCategories'). The endpoint line duplicates the annotation title, so roughly two-thirds of the text is waste.

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?

With read-only annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient to call the tool, but it leaves out the result shape, pagination implications, and how it differs from the neighboring rights tools.

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 100%, with page, pageSize, filter (FIQL), sortAsc and sortDesc all documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the required page/pageSize values or the available filter fields, so it lands at the baseline.

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 name-plus-description pair clearly states a read operation returning Rights Categories scoped to the logged-in user. It does not explicitly contrast with provider_query_rights or provider_get_rights_category, so the agent must infer the difference from the noun alone.

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?

No statement of when to choose this over provider_query_rights, provider_get_rights_category, or provider_create_custom_rights_category. The only implied guidance is 'logged in user' scope; there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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