search_categories

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only search and mentions resolving a category_id, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, ordering, error behavior, or whether results are limited or localized.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the key usage guidance. Every phrase earns its place with no redundant wording.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple search tool, but with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves gaps around the exact return structure and the locale parameter. It gives the essential purpose but not enough detail for an agent to fully predict the invocation outcome.

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 schema documents q with 'Search text, any language,' but locale has no description. The description does not compensate for the missing locale documentation or clarify how the locale parameter affects search behavior, so the agent still has to guess for an unhandled parameter.

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 searches Agenzax's industry taxonomy, a specific resource and action. It also positions the tool in an explicit workflow by mentioning it should be called before register_profile/search_directory to resolve a category_id, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_regions.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: before register_profile/search_directory and to resolve a category_id. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_regions, but the workflow direction is specific enough to guide correct usage.

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