get_category_detail

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

The description discloses the return structure with a dict containing specific fields and notes an important behavioral nuance: Shopline categories lack a general description field, and seo_description comes from seo_description_translations. This adds value beyond the schema. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does well by mentioning the returned fields and the caveat about description.

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 sections for purpose, API endpoint, and return structure. It is concise but contains useful details without redundancy. Minor issue: the API endpoint is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but it adds specific method and path info that helps clarify behavior.

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 the simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool returns, notes a caveat about the description field, and provides the API endpoint. It could arguably mention error cases (e.g., category not found), but for a detail-retrieval tool with this complexity, it's largely 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?

The parameter schema includes a description for category_id, pointing out it comes from get_category_tree's id field. This provides added context about where the ID comes from, which is helpful. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description doesn't need to add much; the mention of the ID source is a slight bonus.

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 retrieves complete details for a single product category, including name, description, and parent category. It differentiates from the sibling tool 'get_category_tree' by focusing on a single category's full detail while the tree likely provides a hierarchical overview.

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 states '適合在已知分類 ID 的情況下取得詳細欄位' (suitable when the category ID is known), giving clear context for use. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and the mention of the API endpoint imply this is for fetching details rather than listing or tree traversal.

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