List Categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the call returns *every* category (implying no pagination) and names the returned fields, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the list can grow unbounded. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with zero padding. The what-it-returns statement comes first and the guidance for when to call it is front-loaded immediately after.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by naming the three returned fields and positioning the tool as a prerequisite for valid category/from values. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this zero-arg lookup is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document beyond the empty schema; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description does add value by stating the shape of the returned items.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every Top Candidates category') and enumerates exactly what comes back (slug, display name, browse URL). This also routes the agent away from the search/profile siblings, since it is clearly a reference-listing operation rather than a search.

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 says to 'call this first when you need a valid `category` filter or `from` value,' which tells the agent the prerequisite context for the sibling search tools. No when-not conditions are given, but the tool has no real alternative, so the guidance is practically complete.

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