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

Annotations already cover readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are pre-filtered by the org's Build Envelope and out-of-envelope options are never advertised, which explains why callers may not see everything they expect. It also discloses that mode=overview only applies to the tools view.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the catalog and its envelope scoping rule, then the available slices and modifiers. Parentheticals carry the constraint detail without wasted prose.

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 only three parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient, and it does explain the row-versus-app-map distinction. However, with no output schema, an agent gets no sense of what a returned row contains, and the incomplete view list leaves a real gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents mode, view, and query semantics. The description largely restates the enum values, and its view list is actually incomplete — it omits 'policies', which exists in the schema enum, creating a risk that an agent never discovers that slice.

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 a concrete resource (the organization's served catalog) and its scoping rule (filtered by the Build Envelope), then enumerates the views it can return. An agent can tell this is a unified discovery/enumeration tool rather than a per-resource lister like list_agents or list_blueprints, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the view enumeration and the optional query filter suggest 'use this to browse or search the catalog.' There is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus the many specific list_* siblings, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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