List categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining the purpose of the IDs ('required by write tools'), which tells the agent these IDs are valuable for chaining into subsequent write operations. The scope (category groups AND categories) adds clarity about what's returned.

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 conveys the resource, the verb, the output content, and a practical usage hint (IDs needed by write tools). Zero waste, every word earns its place.

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?

For a straightforward listing tool with readOnlyHint annotation and 100% schema coverage of its 2 optional parameters, the description is largely complete. It conveys the output (categories+groups+IDs) and the practical relevance of the output. No output schema exists, but the description adequately characterizes what's returned. Minor gap: doesn't describe pagination or ordering behavior, but acceptable for a simple listing tool.

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 100%, with both parameters (include_notes, include_hidden) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra detail about these parameters, but the schema already carries the full burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 this lists category groups and categories with their IDs, which is specific about the resource (categories) and the verb (list). It adds the valuable note that IDs are required by write tools. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_accounts or get_payees, though the resource name itself provides clear differentiation.

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 implies this is a read/reference tool since it notes IDs are required by write tools, suggesting it should be used before write operations. However, there's no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion of alternatives, and the sibling tools are clearly distinct resources so no specific alternative is named. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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