search_categories_infobel

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: each keyword triggers a separate call, results are merged and deduplicated, and output includes codes for use in another tool. It lacks mention of read-only nature or rate limits, but overall provides meaningful behavioral insight.

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 well-structured with purpose, usage advice, and parameter details. It is mostly concise, though the Args section repeats information from the parameter names. Minor redundancy but overall efficient.

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 description covers purpose, behavior, parameter usage, and output purpose. It mentions the link to search_businesses. Given an output schema exists, it does not need to detail return format further. Slightly lacking mention of safety (read-only) but otherwise complete.

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 0%, but the description explains both parameters thoroughly: keywords as an array of search terms with examples, and language_code as display language with common codes. It adds value beyond the schema alone.

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 searches Infobel's proprietary category hierarchy by keywords, explains the multi-keyword behavior with separate API calls and deduplication, and explicitly links the output to use in search_businesses. This distinguishes it from siblings for other category sources.

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 advises using multiple keywords to widen coverage and provides examples. It mentions the output's purpose for search_businesses, implying context. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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