Category sections and subjects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description needn't restate it. What the description adds is the dual-mode behavior (sections at the top level, subjects when scoped), which is useful, but it says nothing about return shape, pagination, or whether subjects are exhaustive — relevant since there is no output schema.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the primary behavior is front-loaded ahead of the alternative-tool pointer. It stops just short of over-terseness, since 'Codes go to...' reads as shorthand the reader must decode.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage this is close to sufficient: the agent can tell the omit-vs-pass modes apart and knows where to go for codes. The remaining gap is that with no output schema, the description never indicates what a section or subject record contains, which an agent may need to chain into sb_browse.

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 100% and the parameter's own description already states "Omit to list the sections", so the schema carries the semantics. The description's "for one section, its subjects" corroborates that the parameter is a mode switch rather than a filter, but it adds no format, pattern, or example beyond 'bts-1' already present in the schema — baseline 3.

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?

"Category sections or, for one section, its subjects" names the resource and the two-mode behavior precisely, and the follow-up sentence distinguishes it from sb_browse. It loses a point only because the verb is implied rather than stated (nothing says 'list/return'), leaving the agent to infer that this is a read of a taxonomy.

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?

"Codes go to sb_browse(kind='category')" is a real routing rule pointing at a named alternative, which is more than most definitions offer. However, the condition is compressed and the key term 'Codes' is never defined (category codes? section codes?), and there is no explicit when-to-use statement beyond the schema's 'Omit to list the sections', so the guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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