run_leboncoin_categories

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses the shape of the returned tree, that include_filters attaches a filter catalog only to the first category, and the cost ('5 point per returned record'). It omits any auth, rate-limit, or pagination behavior, so it isn't fully complete but is well above the annotation-relief baseline.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the include_filters nuance, then cost. No filler and every sentence adds signal; the final cost sentence is terse but informative.

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 output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields (id, name, slug, parent, nested subcategories). Both parameters and the cost are covered, leaving only auth/rate-limit details unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a read-only taxonomy 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds minor extra meaning by noting that include_filters attaches the filters (with enum values) to the first category, but the 'empty = whole tree' semantics for category is already in the schema, so the marginal value is small.

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 a specific verb and resource: get the leboncoin category tree, and enumerates what it returns (id, name, slug, parent, nested subcategories). It is unambiguous which domain it belongs to, though it never contrasts itself with sibling category tools like run_olx_categories or run_kleinanzeigen_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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent can infer this is a taxonomy-lookup tool used before searching or filtering listings, but the description never states that or offers exclusions, so it must be inferred.

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