Find a Leboncoin category

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's claim of being 'purely local' adds valuable context beyond those. It also discloses the ranking behavior and leaf distinction, which are not implied by annotations. No contradiction found.

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 concise at four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then key behavioral insight, then a note about locality. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description appropriately states it returns numeric IDs with full paths. It also provides critical domain knowledge about leaf categories and the consequence of choosing a wrong category. While it doesn't detail the ranking algorithm or edge cases, it covers the essential context needed for effective use. Missing explicit guidance on when to use this vs. list_categories, but overall 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 67% (query and leafOnly have descriptions, limit does not). The description enhances understanding of leafOnly by explaining that leaf categories are the ones that can hold ads, which is crucial for using the parameter correctly. It also clarifies that query is free text. However, it doesn't add any detail about the limit parameter, but that is self-explanatory.

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 ranks Leboncoin categories against free text and returns their numeric IDs with full paths. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_categories by focusing on ranking against user input, making the purpose specific and distinguishable.

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?

Provides important usage context: only leaf categories can hold ads (others are search sections), and advises showing both top results when scores are close to avoid burying ads. It also notes the tool is purely local and works when the site blocks requests, implying when it's safe to use. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like list_categories, so it's slightly below perfect.

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