list_categories

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses that the tool returns categories with record counts and provides examples. It doesn't mention ordering, filtering, or pagination, but for a simple list operation this is acceptable. The output schema likely covers return structure.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose ('List all trade categories with record counts'), and then illustrative examples. No superfluous information.

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 the output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It provides enough context for a trivial zero-parameter tool, though it could mention that categories are tied to development applications, but that's implied by the sibling context.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to explain.

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 lists all trade categories with record counts, and gives concrete examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_das or get_da, which are not about categories.

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 use case is implied: call this tool when you need the list of trade categories. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, but given its simplicity, the implied usage is sufficient.

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