Product categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (id, name, level, parent_id) and the semantics of level ('deeper = narrower'), which is meaningful behavioral context despite there being 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 front-loaded sentences: purpose and mode selection first, then return fields, then the downstream hand-off. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so describing returned fields is required and it does so (id, name, level, parent_id). For a zero-required-parameter read-only tree lookup, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents limit, query, and parent_id, making 3 the baseline. The description adds interaction semantics the schema does not capture (no arguments yields top sections, parent_id yields children), which lifts it slightly above baseline.

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 and resource ('Find category ids by name, or walk the tree') and covers both operating modes. It also names the sibling tools (bm_browse, bm_search) that consume the returned ids, so an agent can distinguish this lookup tool from them without opening a schema.

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 explicit mode-selection guidance: no arguments = top sections, parent_id = children, and routing the output to bm_browse or bm_search. It doesn't state when NOT to use this tool or contrast it with a sibling category-like tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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