category_suggestions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that: no explanation of what a 'category opportunity' contains, whether data is live or cached, or how the profile/adAccountId interact.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is terse but structurally sound; the brevity is a content gap rather than verbosity.

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 9 parameters, an output schema, and a rich set of suggestion/report siblings, a one-line description is too thin. An output schema relieves the need to document return values, but the agent still lacks context on what an opportunity is and how to select this tool over its many siblings.

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 parameters are documented structurally and baseline 3 applies. The description contributes no additional meaning about how filters, groupBy, or options apply specifically to category insights.

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?

A specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('category opportunities') scoped to an App Store app, so the agent knows the general operation. It does not differentiate itself from near-siblings like app_opportunities or keyword_suggestions, which remain ambiguous.

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 statement of when to use this vs. alternatives such as app_opportunities, search_term_popularity, or keyword_suggestions, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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