get_categories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains pagination parameters and filter semantics (e.g., prefix matching, date operators) and mentions the hierarchical structure, but it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or describe what happens on empty results. This is adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, a brief note on hierarchy, usage context, and a concise Args block. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the format is easy to scan.

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 existence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers filtering, pagination, and hierarchical relationships, which is sufficient for a list/filter tool. It could mention sorting or error behavior, but overall it is quite complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: each parameter gets a meaningful explanation beyond the raw schema, including ranges (limit 1-100), defaults, filter semantics, and examples for date filters. This adds substantial value.

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 states 'Get spending/income categories' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle accounts, records, budgets, etc. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 notes that categories are hierarchical and advises using category IDs to filter records by category, which gives practical context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the guidance is clear enough for typical usage.

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