List BilkaToGo categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description goes further by disclosing result ordering, that counts depend on the filter flags, that results depend on the configured store, and a prompt-injection warning about untrusted category names. It stops short of covering pagination or result-size limits, which matters for a listing tool.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first clause, then layers traversal, filter semantics, and the security note in a logical order. No sentence is redundant — even the injection warning carries actionable safety information.

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 no output schema, the description still conveys what a returned category looks like (a full path with a count), its ordering, and why counts vary by flag. For a four-parameter, zero-required read tool this leaves nothing an agent needs unknown before calling.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully clarifies the two easily confused flags: `only_leaflet` is the weekly Avisen while `only_offers` "also counts everyday price labels such as 'Skarp pris'" — a distinction the schema's near-identical wording blurs. It also states the full-path format for `parent` with a concrete example.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the categories of the BilkaToGo shop's menu") plus scope (configured store), return shape (each with a product count), and ordering (largest first). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling search_products, which it names as the browsing counterpart.

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?

Explicit traversal rule: "Without `parent` it lists the top level; with `parent` the categories directly under it, so walk down one level at a time." It also routes the agent onward — "pass it to search_products as `category` to browse or search in it, or as `parent` here" — with no inference required.

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