search_categories_international

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

The description reveals that each keyword triggers a separate API call and results are merged and deduplicated. It also states that returned codes are for use in search_businesses field. Since no annotations are provided, this behavior information is valuable, though it does not cover rate limits or auth.

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 concise with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action, followed by behavioral details, use case, then parameter explanations. Structure is logical.

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 an output schema exists (not shown), the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, behavioral quirks, and parameter usage adequately for a simple search tool, though it omits edge cases like error handling or pagination.

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 'Args' section explains both parameters: keywords as search terms with examples, language_code as display language with examples. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by providing meaning beyond the schema fields.

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 it searches ISIC international category codes (UN standard) by keywords. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'ISIC international' and 'UN standard', differentiating it from alternative category searches like alt_international, infobel, local.

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 says 'Use for cross-country industry searches using UN classification.' While this provides context, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention sibling tools as alternatives, which would improve guidance.

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