browse_category

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds critical context by specifying that category paths must be exact, wrong paths will 404, and offering a fallback strategy via search_gospel_library. It also notes the lang default behavior, going beyond the basic listing semantics.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and keeps critical warnings in the IMPORTANT section. It is somewhat long but every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema. The description covers purpose, use cases, parameter nuances, error behavior (404), and fallback to a sibling tool, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Although the schema already covers both parameters (100% coverage), the description enriches the semantics with concrete path examples, warnings against generic paths, and an explicit default for lang. This adds meaningful value beyond the schema definitions.

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 lists articles and talks in a Gospel Library category, returns titles and URLs, and differentiates from siblings by focusing on browsing categories rather than searching or fetching single items.

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?

It explicitly identifies use cases ('browsing conference sessions, scripture books, or magazine issues'), tells the agent to use search_gospel_library first when unsure of a path, and warns against guessing generic paths that will 404. This provides strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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