get_category_related

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by warning that results are 'Often empty' and explaining that this represents cross-links to sibling topics, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose, distinctions, and a behavioral warning in under 25 words. Every phrase contributes information; no 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?

For a simple single-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description provides everything needed: purpose, distinction from hierarchy, and empty-result warning. No missing information that the agent needs to select and call 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 description coverage is 100% — the sole parameter category_id is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('categories related to a FRED category'). It distinguishes itself from the parent/child hierarchy, setting it apart from the sibling tool get_category_children. The phrase 'cross-links to sibling topics elsewhere in the tree' further clarifies the unique purpose.

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 clear context: it is for related/cross-link categories, not the hierarchy. It also notes 'Often empty', implying limited utility. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like get_category_children, so it stops short of explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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