Browse category

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: 'parents and children come with each reply' and the disclosed limitation that Torob has no tree endpoint so per-sub-category counts are unavailable, which prevents an agent from expecting aggregate counts.

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 the parenthetical caveat attached to the relevant clause; the resource definition is front-loaded before usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description usefully states what a reply contains (parents, children, top products) and where a limitation exists. It stops short of covering paging behavior for the 'page' parameter, but the agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

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 83%, so sort, brand, limit, category, and max_price are already documented in the schema; the description only alludes to the category parameter via the tb_search(category=) reference. No additional syntax, format, or interaction detail is added, so the 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?

The description names a specific resource (a category page) and enumerates exactly what it contains: tree position, sub-categories, and top products. It also distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by pointing at tb_search(category=) for in-category text search.

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?

It gives two explicit use cases (walk the category tree; list a category's products) and names the alternative plus the condition that selects it: 'For text search inside a category use tb_search(category=).' Nothing is left to inference.

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