Categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds one useful trait: with neither input only top-level categories and child titles are returned (no urls), and it does not say what happens if both url and query are supplied. No contradiction with annotations.

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 one-line bullets after a single-sentence purpose statement, front-loaded with the primary use case (query for urls) and no filler. Every line carries distinct routing information.

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?

Return values are covered by the existing output schema, and the description fully explains the three input modes, so an agent can call it correctly in the common cases. The only gap is undefined behavior when both optional params are provided simultaneously.

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% with examples for both params, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond by explaining the behavioral meaning of each param's presence/absence and treating them as mode selectors rather than independent filters. It still doesn't state precedence when both are passed.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find category pages and their urls') and names the sibling tool it feeds (tl_category_products), so the agent knows this is the category-navigation entry point rather than a product/search tool. The three input modes are enumerated up front.

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 routes the caller: use query to match categories by name ('best way to get a url'), use url to list a category's sub-pages, and use neither for the top-level tree. This is a near-complete when-to-use map for a 2-parameter optional-input tool.

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