list_options_v2

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses 'Cached 7d', a useful behavioral detail about data freshness. However, it does not mention other traits like read-only nature, authentication requirements, or error handling, leaving gaps but still adding some value beyond the schema.

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 extremely concise with two clear segments: the action statement and the caching note. Every word is necessary; no filler. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately useful.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral trait (caching). It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does without missing critical context, though a bit more detail on the output structure could improve it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines the single parameter `category_id` with its type and default. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high-coverage scenarios.

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 verb 'List' and the specific resource 'grouped (publishing) options V2 structure for a category.' It distinguishes from sibling `list_options` by mentioning 'V2' and 'grouped (publishing)', making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `list_options` or other list tools. The description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, leaving the agent without decision context.

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