List categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations cannot: the approximate result size (~100 entries) and the fact that the payload contains ids meant to be threaded into other calls. No auth or rate-limit disclosure, but nothing is contradicted.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the routing/alternative information follows immediately.

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 simple one-optional-param read tool with an output schema, the definition covers purpose, result shape (ids, ~100 categories) and sibling routing. Return-value details are delegated to the output schema, which the rubric permits, so nothing an agent needs 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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional `query` parameter is well documented in the schema, including Persian/English examples and a minLength constraint. The description never mentions the filter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 MasterKala's product categories with their ids") plus a scope estimate ("about 100 main categories"), which tells the agent both what it returns and roughly how much. Combined with the sibling set (mk_brands, mk_filters), the wording makes clear this is the category taxonomy enumerator rather than a product or brand lookup.

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 states the downstream use ("Use to get a category_id for mk_browse / mk_filters") and names the alternative for a different need ("mk_search also returns the categories matching a keyword"). The agent knows both when to call this and when a sibling is a better fit.

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