List the categories recipes are browsed by

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: entries carry browse_recipes tokens, 'listed_in' reflects site placement, malformed tokens yield pages the site does not hold, and the list is not exhaustive. This is rich, relevant behavioral disclosure with no contradiction.

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 opens with a crisp purpose statement, then each subsequent sentence adds essential information: token usage, placement semantics, the warning against hand-built tokens, and coverage limitations. There is no filler or repetition.

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 and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing piece: what the entries mean, how to use them with browse_recipes, and how far the categories list extends. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 as per the rubric. The input schema is empty and fully described by its 100% coverage, and the description correctly focuses on output semantics rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('categories Supertoinette browses its recipes by'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_recipe or search_recipes. It also names browse_recipes as the downstream consumer of the returned tokens, further clarifying its role.

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 clear context: use this tool to obtain category tokens for browse_recipes, and warns not to hand-construct tokens. It also notes the tool's coverage limitation—tag-based categories are not included—but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for those cases, leaving some routing to inference.

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