Categories

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 real context beyond them: slugs are store-specific (Bazaar 'tools' = Myket 'productivity'), Myket names are Persian, and the Bazaar game list is not guaranteed complete.

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, front-loaded with what it does and the consumer, followed by only the caveats an agent actually needs (store divergence, Persian naming, non-exhaustive game list). Nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return and does state it returns category slugs plus important caveats about store divergence. It does not describe the concrete return shape (list of strings vs. objects with names), which is the one remaining gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'store' parameter is an enum already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces store-specific behavior but adds no syntax or format detail about the parameter itself.

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 ties the output to its downstream consumer ('to pass as ap_top category'), which cleanly separates it from ap_top, ap_search, and the other siblings. An agent knows exactly what this returns and why.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: call this to obtain valid category slugs before invoking ap_top, and it warns that the Bazaar game list is a verified subset rather than exhaustive. It stops short of explicitly naming a 'do not use this for X' exclusion, so it falls just under the top bar.

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