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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination (50 per page), filtering by type, and that the result is slugs. However, it does not describe the exact return shape (e.g., array of strings, object with metadata) or behavior for out-of-range pages, which is a notable gap.

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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose, filter options, and pagination. Zero wasted words; the structure is clean and front-loaded.

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?

For a straightforward list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior but omits the return format and pagination semantics beyond page size. Given the sibling tools, it is enough to distinguish purposes but not fully self-contained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly lists the enum values for type and adds the page size (50 per page), which is helpful. However, it does not name the 'page' parameter or explain its default/minimum, leaving some burden on the schema.

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 states it returns paginated slugs filtered by content type, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling content-fetching tools like get_briefing or get_products. It uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, but the tool name 'list_catalogue' makes the action 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used to discover slugs before fetching specific content, nor does it exclude any use cases. The intended usage is only implied by the word 'slugs'.

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