Filters of a category or brand

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context on top: long non-brand groups are cut to 40 options with an `omitted` count, and max_price is the most expensive item in Toman. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent must know to interpret the response correctly.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a second paragraph covering the workflow and truncation caveat; every sentence carries information. The first sentence is slightly compressed ('with their ids, and its price range'), but nothing 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return shapes, and it correctly focuses on workflow (use before mk_browse), the id->filter_ids handoff, truncation limits, and price units. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool 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 each parameter is already documented (brand slug, group, tag_id, category_id). The description goes slightly beyond by explaining the output contract that connects parameters to results — group options map filter id -> name and those ids are what you pass as filter_ids. That cross-tool linkage adds value over the schema alone.

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 ('List') and resource ('the filters of a category, brand or tag page') plus what is returned (filter ids/names and price range). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like mk_categories or mk_brands, which return different resources.

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 says 'Use before mk_browse when the user wants a brand, color or feature inside a category', naming both the alternative tool and the selecting condition. It also tells the agent how to recover from truncated groups by asking for that group explicitly.

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