Get category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the HTTP method and endpoint, and importantly describes the behavior on 400 errors (returns verbose error). This is useful behavioral insight beyond a simple 'get', though it omits authentication or rate limit details.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first front-loads the purpose and endpoint. The second adds critical error handling guidance. No filler or redundant information.

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 simple single-parameter GET with no output schema, the description covers the core function, endpoint, and error handling. It references the API docs for field names. Could mention the return type or pagination (though likely single item), but overall sufficiently complete.

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% for the single 'id' parameter. The description adds no additional context about the id format, source, or validation. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 a single category by ID, references the specific API endpoint (GET /categories/{id}), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like loyverse_list_category and loyverse_create_category.

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 provides error handling guidance ('If a call fails with a 400... adjust the fields and retry') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., retrieving a single specific category vs. listing all). The sibling naming implies purpose but no direct usage context.

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