List Leboncoin categories

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds valuable context: 'Purely local, no request to Leboncoin.' It also discloses the argument-dependent return behavior, which is meaningful for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds distinct value: what the tool does, how arguments change behavior, and the local/no-network guarantee.

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 browse tool with two optional parameters and rich annotations, the description is complete. It explains the core behavior, parameter effects, and the local execution model. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently characterizes what the tool returns at a high level.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces the `parentId` behavior but does not add significant semantic detail beyond what the input schema already states.

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 ('Browses') and clear resource ('Leboncoin category tree'), and explains the two main behaviors: returning top-level sections with no argument and listing children with `parentId`. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_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 gives practical usage context: no argument returns top-level sections, passing `parentId` lists children. It could explicitly mention when to prefer this over find_category, but the usage pattern is clear and self-contained.

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