Browse a category

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and variability. The description adds the helpful metaphor 'equivalent of opening a category page' but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, result limits (though schema covers limit), or any quirks. Given the annotations already handle the key safety signal, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds value. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a focused read-only browsing tool. No wasteful fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, so the description could helpfully outline the return shape (products list, next_cursor, filters block). It doesn't, but the schema's filter and cursor parameters imply the response contains those elements. The core action is clear, and the absence of output schema makes the description slightly incomplete but not critically so for a browsing 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, including details on sort enums, cursor semantics, filter structure, and price shorthand. The description itself doesn't add any parameter-specific meaning beyond saying where category_id comes from, which is external context. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the burden effectively.

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 clearly states the tool lists products in a category without a search term, contrasting with search tools. It specifies the resource (category/product type) and the action (list), and distinguishes from siblings like galaxus_search and galaxus_browse_brand by its unique purpose.

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 explicitly frames the use case as 'without a search term', implying when to choose category browsing over search. It also tells where category ids come from (search results, pt facet, autocomplete), giving concrete guidance on how to obtain the required parameter. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like browse_brand, but it's clear enough.

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