Grocery categories

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is low. The description still adds real behavioral value by flagging the non-obvious virtual 'kalabarg' entry (id 99999999) that would otherwise look like a normal category, which is a genuine data caveat beyond the structured fields.

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, purpose front-loaded, followed only by the two facts an agent actually needs (id reuse in market_store_products, the special kalabarg entry). No filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the one piece of domain knowledge that structured fields cannot (the magic id 99999999), making it complete for a two-parameter read 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 description coverage is 100% — both lat and long are documented with type and valid ranges — so the schema carries this dimension. The description adds nothing about the parameters themselves; baseline 3 applies per the coverage rule.

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 SnappMarket product categories and sub-categories with their ids.' It also names the sibling that consumes the output ('The ids work as category_id / subcategory_id in market_store_products'), so an agent can place this tool in the workflow without opening another 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 cross-reference to market_store_products clearly signals the intended use: fetch ids here, then filter products there. That is strong contextual guidance, though it never explicitly says 'use this before market_store_products' or states when not to use it, and no alternative listing tool is named.

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