Course 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 genuine behavioral context: tree depth semantics, node volume, and that this is the slug source for other tools, which warns the agent about a prerequisite/dependency chain. Return field shape is still unstated.

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?

Extremely compact and front-loaded: the consumer relationship comes first, then the mode selector. Slightly telegraphic phrasing ('query = title search with path') costs a little readability but no sentence is wasted.

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?

A tree-listing tool with no output schema should tell the agent what a node looks like (slug, title, child count, path) and whether the whole tree can be returned at once. The description conveys scale and access modes but not the response structure, leaving a real gap for a zero-required-param tool.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining mode interaction: no args yields the 11 top-level groups, slug selects one subtree, query does title search with path. This clarifies how the parameters compose, which the schema fields alone do not.

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 resource (category tree), its size (~680 nodes in 11 top-level groups), and its primary output contract: slugs consumed by mkh_browse, mkh_free_courses, mkh_cheapest and mkh_deals. An agent can immediately tell this apart from sibling tools that consume those slugs.

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?

Explicitly enumerates the three invocation modes — no arguments for top-level groups, slug for one subtree, query for title search — which covers the main when-to-use cases. It does not state when to prefer it over mkh_search for keyword lookup, leaving one routing ambiguity.

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