list_categories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the notice counts are 'cached', indicating they might be stale, and that the categories are 'fixed eleven' — a stable, predictable set. This adds meaningful context beyond just 'list categories'.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word adds value: 'fixed' and 'cached' are important qualifiers. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the trivial complexity (zero parameters, read-only listing) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what is returned (categories with cached counts) and implies no side effects. No additional context is needed.

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 input schema has zero properties, so parameter semantics are not applicable. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on what the tool does rather than parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and names the exact resource: 'the fixed eleven categories and cached notice counts.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_notices and get_notice, which deal with individual notices.

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 description clearly implies when to use the tool: to retrieve the fixed list of categories and their cached notice counts. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools (search_notices, get_notice, list_latest_notices) makes the distinction obvious. For a simple list operation, this is sufficient.

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