resolve_category

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the return contract ('Returns ids to use with other tools'), which is genuinely useful chaining context. It omits matching behavior details such as case sensitivity, result caps, or ordering, which an agent would want for a search tool.

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, zero filler, purpose front-loaded ahead of the return-value note. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

For a single-parameter resolver with no output schema, the description covers what it does and what it returns, which is sufficient to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around result-set behavior (multiple matches, limits), which matter for a search-style tool.

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% and the schema already describes the parameter as 'Part of a category name', so baseline would be 3. The description adds the substring-matching semantics ('name contains the query'), clarifying it is a contains-search rather than prefix or exact match, which is real added meaning.

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+resource ('Find categories') and adds the matching rule ('whose name contains the query'), so an agent knows exactly what it does. It doesn't differentiate from the only sibling, get_insights, but that sibling is clearly unrelated in purpose.

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?

Usage is implied by the text – this is the tool to call when you have a partial category name and need the canonical id. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no note about ambiguity or multiple matches, and no stated alternative for exact-name lookups.

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