find_category

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world safety, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context about what a category does to search results (narrowing 'jaguar' to the car vs. the cat) and how the output id is consumed downstream.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the numeric example; the middle paragraph earns its place by explaining the narrowing semantics. The third sentence is a small tag-on but still informative, with little waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. For a simple two-parameter lookup the description covers intent well, but it leaves the `limit` parameter and the exact query semantics unaddressed, which is the remaining gap.

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 0% for two parameters. The text implies `query` is a category name to look up, but never says so directly, and `limit` (default 25) is completely unexplained. With no schema descriptions, the description should compensate but does not.

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 and resource: 'Find the id of a Google Trends category', with a concrete example ('Autos & Vehicles' = 47). It implies a lookup role distinct from find_topic/find_location, but never names or contrasts those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: pass the returned id as `category` to the explore tools, and note that with no keyword a category id shows interest in the whole subject. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or a direct comparison to find_topic/find_location.

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