list_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 identifies the presence of pagination, search, and filters, but gives no details on default behavior, response structure, or edge cases. It does not state that the operation is read-only, although 'List' implies it, and it repeats capabilities already evident from the schema rather than adding new information.

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, concise sentence with no redundancy. Every word adds meaning: it names the resource, the action, and the key capabilities. It is front-loaded and easily parseable.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves gaps around expected response format, default pagination values, and how filters interact with search. While the schema documents the parameters well, the description itself does not fully compensate for the missing behavioral and response context, making the tool partially unspecified for an agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so all six parameters are already documented with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional syntax, constraints, or clarifications beyond grouping them into pagination, search, and filters, which is already apparent from the schema. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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: 'List categories' with capabilities like pagination, search, and filters. While the resource and verb are unambiguous, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling list tools other than by resource name, so it falls just short of a top score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_category should be used for a single category, nor does it exclude scenarios where another list tool (e.g., list_products) would be more appropriate. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' language.

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