search_technology_categories

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It notes cost ('free, no credits') and that it is 'reference data', implying non-destructive behavior. However, it does not disclose output format, pagination, or behavior with empty keyword.

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 with no fluff. Every word adds value, efficiently conveying purpose, resource, and key usage note.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states purpose and cost but omits return value details (e.g., list of category objects). This leaves the agent uncertain about the response structure.

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%. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the use case (finding valid filter values) and cost implication, though it does not specify parameter constraints like format or required length.

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 action ('search'), resource ('technology category names'), and purpose ('find valid technology category filter values'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_technologies and search_vertical_categories by specifying 'technology categories' and noting 'free, no credits' as a usage characteristic.

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 implies usage as a reference lookup for filter values and mentions it is free. It does not explicitly state when to avoid or provide alternatives, but the context is clear for a simple search tool.

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