Get related categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose; it does not explain what 'related' means or any ordering or constraints. It adds no value beyond the annotations.

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 highly concise, with one purposeful sentence and a useful example. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Although an output schema exists and read-only is annotated, the concept of 'related categories' is left ambiguous. Without explaining the nature of the relationship or when to use this tool relative to siblings, the description is insufficient for reliable selection, especially given the many adjacent tools.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It illustrates category_id usage in the example but does not address realtime_start and realtime_end parameters, their purpose, or defaults. This leaves a significant gap for three parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'Get categories related to a FRED category,' and includes an example invocation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_category_children, and 'related' is not precisely defined. The example adds clarity, making the purpose fairly clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The text only provides an example, not the context or selection criteria. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are given.

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