browse_category

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does much of it: it warns that details issues one extra request per item ('keep small'), discloses that refurbished/open-box/outlet offers are excluded and counted in refurbished_hidden, and states filtering happens server-side. Missing auth scope, rate limits, and pagination behavior keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose then parameter semantics in a scannable, bullet-like layout; most sentences earn their place. The refurbished paragraph is slightly long and could be tightened, but not wasteful given the behavior it clarifies.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be restated, and the description still adds useful return context (refurbished_hidden). For an 8-parameter, unannotated tool it covers most operational detail, with the gap being page/offer_limit semantics and pagination behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it documents sort and sort_dir values, the filters object shape (select vs range, inclusive bounds, example), and the refurbished flag's semantics. However, page and offer_limit are never explained, leaving two of eight parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Browse a Pricewatch category') and gives concrete example slugs, plus the scope of what makes it distinct (server-side spec filtering). It doesn't explicitly contrast with the closest sibling search_products, so an agent must infer that keyword search is the other tool's job.

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?

Usage is clear: use list_categories to find slugs, get_category_filters for filter names/options, and set include_refurbished only when the user explicitly asks for refurbished/outlet items. It gives explicit when-not guidance for one parameter, but no exclusion or routing against search_products for non-category browsing.

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