List categories

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the tree shape (one nesting level), the 'tags' alias, and that usage counts cover the last 12 months.

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 compact sentences with the resource and return shape front-loaded and no filler; the trailing usage note earns its place by linking to sibling tools.

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 does the necessary work of describing the returned tree, ids, kinds and 12-month usage counts, but it leaves include_archived and the exact kind enum behavior unexplained.

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 67%, and the description maps kind to expense/income/both while the schema enum is expense/income/all — a minor mismatch — and never explains include_archived or the search substring filter. It adds path/name referencing semantics but not full parameter clarity.

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 the specific resource (category tree / ZenMoney 'tags'), its one-level nesting, and the fields returned (ids, kind, usage count over 12 months). It clearly differs from create/update/delete_category siblings, though it doesn't explicitly say so.

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 sentence 'Use names, "Parent / Child" paths or ids elsewhere' tells the agent how to reference categories in other tools, which implicitly frames this as the lookup step, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative.

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