List the categories recipes are browsed by

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations by warning that slugs are written freely by the site, that guessed slugs land on non-existent pages, and that entries carry the slug to pass back. This directly addresses the open-world nature of the catalog and prevents a common failure mode.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the core action and the two-mode behavior appear first, followed by a necessary warning about slug instability. Every sentence contributes either to correct invocation or to avoiding an error, with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Given the tool's two-level hierarchy, optional parameters, rich annotations, and existing output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: how to start, how to descend, and why slug guessing is unsafe. Pagination and return details are already handled by the schema and output schema, so nothing essential 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%, so the schema fully documents 'limit' and 'family.' The description reinforces that 'family' should come from a previous call and that omitting it reads the families, but it does not add meaning significantly beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the categories Ptitchef browses its recipes by.' It also clarifies the hierarchical relationship between families of ingredients and categories, which separates it from sibling tools like search_recipes, browse_recipes, and get_recipe. The two-call pattern (no argument for families, family slug for categories) makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 description gives explicit instructions for both usage modes: called without arguments it returns families, and passing a family's slug as 'family' returns its categories. It also warns against hand-building slugs. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over search/browse tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for category-tree navigation.

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