get_navigation_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description discloses the tool is read-only by nature ('Retrieves'), specifies exactly what content is returned, and mentions dynamic state (whether promotions are active). It does not detail session or access requirements, but that is a limited gap for a zero-parameter read-only tool.

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 two sentences long, with the main action and scope front-loaded, followed by valuable detail about return fields and use cases. Every clause adds useful information without repetition or filler.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description successfully conveys what the tool returns, its scope, and its intended uses. It is appropriately complete for a navigation-tree retrieval endpoint.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not add parameter-level semantics. Schema coverage is 100% vacuously. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate given the absence of 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the full navigation/category tree for the Carrefour France website, with specific details on the hierarchical structure and included fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on products, cart, loyalty, or sessions.

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?

It states that the tool is useful for building navigation menus or browsing the category hierarchy, providing clear context for when it should be used. There are no sibling tools with similar navigation-tree functionality, so explicit exclusion of alternatives is not applicable.

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