get_category_paths

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses cost (~1 point/call), speed (~2s), and that it's cheaper than N single resolutions. Also notes downstream rarely depends on it (presentation-only). No contradictions.

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?

Description is well-organized into sections with bullet points for returns and pairing. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise but no waste.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return structure in detail (data.items with fields). Parameter meanings are clear from schema and description. For a simple 2-param tool, this is fully 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 description coverage is 100% with both parameters having descriptions. The description adds context beyond schema: provides example paths, explains batch behavior, and details return format. Baseline 3, increased due to added value.

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?

Description clearly states it batch-resolves category IDs to full paths with an example ('Electronics > Headphones'). Explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool get_category_children (tree structure) and notes other tools already return browseNodeNamePath for single IDs.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (need readable category context, multiple IDs) and when not to use (single ID, tree structure). Also mentions pairing with prior steps like filter_niches/filter_categories output.

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