Browse a category or brand

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results use 'the same filters and cards as bm_search' and that at least one scoping id is needed, but says nothing about pagination limits or result volume beyond what the schema states.

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 sentences with no filler; the purpose and the scoping requirement are front-loaded before the workflow hint. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 read-only browse tool with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers purpose, required inputs and the calling sequence adequately. It omits only return-shape detail, which is partly implied by the 'same cards as bm_search' reference.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description contributes something the schema does not: the cross-tool constraint that at least one of category_id or brand_id must be supplied, in a schema where nothing is required. The reference to bm_search filter parity also helps an agent infer the remaining filter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List the products of a category and/or brand') and scopes it to a section rather than a query. It partially differentiates from siblings by pointing at bm_search for filter parity and bm_categories/bm_brands as inputs, though it never says outright how browse differs from bm_search in intent.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Give at least one of category_id or brand_id') and a clear workflow cue ('Use after bm_categories or bm_brands to see a whole section'). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use-this-vs-bm_search statement, which keeps it short of a 5.

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