List product categories

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the result is a canonical, recognized set of categories rather than arbitrary or free-form values, which helps the agent understand the closed vocabulary. This goes beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the purpose clause, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool without an output schema, the description is complete. It states what is returned, the nature of the data (canonical labels), and the downstream use case, which is all an agent needs to select and invoke 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the returned categories are meant to be used as the `product` argument to regulatory_check, providing relevant semantic linkage even without parameters.

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 identifies a clear resource: commodity/product categories recognized by the regulatory matrix. It also explains the purpose — supplying the `product` argument to regulatory_check — which distinguishes it from sibling tools like regulatory_countries and regulatory_check itself.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: to obtain canonical labels for the `product` argument in regulatory_check. It does not discuss when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended use case is clear and sufficient for a zero-parameter list tool.

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