Categories

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world access, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: slugs are store-specific with an explicit cross-store mapping example, Myket names are Persian, and the Bazaar game list may be incomplete — all of which change how an agent should interpret and reuse results.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose first, caveats second; nothing is redundant. The abrupt line breaks inside sentences slightly hurt scanability but cost no clarity.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, downstream use, and the data-quality pitfalls that matter. Only the shape of the returned slug list (ordering, approximate count) is left implicit, which is minor.

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 single enum is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining the consequence of the store choice — that it selects a different slug vocabulary and name language — which is meaning the enum list alone does not convey.

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 ("List the category slugs of a store") and adds the downstream consumer ("to pass as ap_top category"), which pins its role relative to the ap_top sibling. An agent can tell this apart from ap_search/ap_app without opening the 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?

The intended use is concrete: call this to obtain a category slug before calling ap_top. It does not state exclusions (e.g. what to do if you already know the slug, or when to skip ap_top entirely), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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