Browse Rakuten Ichiba Genres

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying that the response includes ancestors, siblings, and direct children, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 English portion is concise and front-loaded with the core behavior. The Japanese duplicate is acceptable for a bilingual tool but adds length. No wasted sentences.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the response structure (ancestors, siblings, children) and usage context. It covers the key aspects for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100% with a good description for the genre_id parameter. The tool description reiterates the behavior but adds context about drilling down. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already explains the parameter well.

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 browses the Rakuten Ichiba genre hierarchy, with specific behavior for '0' and other genre IDs. It differentiates from siblings like ichiba_item_search by stating it's useful for narrowing item searches or discovering categories.

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 explains when to use it (narrowing item searches, discovering categories) and implies the input behavior. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the sibling context suggests differentiation.

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