Browse a category

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's added value is the ranking disclosure: most-upvoted first but featured (paid) products promoted and marked. That is a genuine behavioral trait an agent needs in order to interpret and caveat results. Missing pagination/empty-result behavior, but the paid-placement disclosure is the important piece.

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?

Three tight sentences, each doing work: ranking semantics first, selection guidance second, result fields and citation instruction third. No filler.

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 output schema, the description usefully names the two return fields and tells the agent to cite pageUrl as the source, which is real value. Minor gaps on result count/pagination and behavior for unknown categories, but the essential calling information is present.

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 coverage is 100%, so limit, pricing enum, and the category slug source (list_categories, with fallback to category name) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Top products in one category') plus the ordering semantics (upvotes, featured first). It also distinguishes itself from keyword search by specifying use 'without a specific keyword', which separates it from sibling search_products.

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 gives the triggering condition ('user asks for the best tools of a kind without a specific keyword'), which implicitly routes keyword queries elsewhere. It stops short of naming the alternative sibling (search_products) outright, leaving one inference step.

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