mf_categories

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states it returns 'all' categories, implying completeness, but doesn't disclose whether there is any filtering, sorting, or pagination. For a simple read-only enumeration this is acceptable but not richly detailed; it doesn't mention side effects or authentication requirements, which is fine for a public list but still minimal.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that conveys purpose and usage without any filler. It's appropriately sized for a trivial no-parameter tool and front-loads the key fact (all categories with ids) before the usage hint.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists (noted in context), the description fully covers what an agent needs: it identifies the resource, its content, and its intended integration point. There are no gaps in guidance for a tool this simple.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the description need not elaborate on parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output and usage context. No additional parameter guidance is needed.

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 states exactly what the tool provides: all fund categories with their ids. It mentions the intended use with mf_list's category parameter, which also distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on funds or stocks rather than categories.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'use with mf_list's `category` param', giving a clear context for when to call this tool. This is a direct, actionable usage directive that leaves no ambiguity about where the returned categories should be applied.

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