SKUit Network & Security Catalog

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial behavior: results are dimension-scoped, not drop-in, they are not drop-in replacements and must be presented as 'comparable on <dimension>', ambiguous input yields candidate families, and the builder link requires a SKUit account.

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 front-loaded with the core scope in the first clause and the result-interpretation rule second, with fallback and output context trailing. It is dense and long-ish for one parameter, but nearly every sentence adds a behavioral rule the agent would otherwise get wrong.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so explicitly (catalog_url for the public page, build_bom_url for building a BOM, plus the account requirement). Combined with the ambiguity fallback and the comparison-dimension caveat, an agent has everything needed to call and present results correctly.

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 single parameter's type and limits are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description goes beyond that by supplying concrete example formats ('Cisco 9300X', 'C9300X-48HX') and clarifying vendor-prefix usage, which helps the agent construct a valid value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('find published alternatives to a product') and pins down the exact scope: one class up, same class, one class down, same role, same vendor first. This is distinguishable from catalog_search_platforms and catalog_get_platform, which search and retrieve rather than compute comparable alternatives.

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?

The description gives clear context for when this is the right call (you have a part number or family and want alternatives) and describes the ambiguous-name fallback ('returns the candidate families to choose from'). It never explicitly routes the agent away from the sibling search/get tools, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the payload carries catalog_url and a build_bom_url, and that the SKUit builder requires an account — an auth prerequisite an agent would otherwise not know.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and key requirement, then the return-value context. No filler or restated title text.

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 no output schema, the description usefully names the two significant return fields and the account requirement for the builder, which is more than most get-style tools offer. A brief note on what happens for an unknown/non-exact id would make it complete.

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% and the single parameter already documents itself with an example ("C9300X-48HX"). The description's "exact platform id" reinforces strictness but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Get the published facts for one platform") and pins the lookup key ("exact platform id"). The phrase "as returned by the other catalog tools" cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling search/find tools, which take looser criteria.

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?

Explicitly says the id must be exact and comes from the other catalog tools, which routes the agent through search first. No explicit when-not-to-use or failure-mode guidance (e.g. unknown id behavior), so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Despite annotations already covering the read-only/idempotent safety profile, the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: deterministic ranking order, per-result explanation and caveats, aggregate counts of matching/unevaluable platforms, nearest-miss reporting, and the two returned URLs including the SKUit-account requirement for the builder. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries information about returns or ranking, so little is wasted. Still, it is a dense multi-clause paragraph packing ranking, caveats, counts and URLs into one block rather than separating concerns, which slightly hurts scanability.

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 no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining returns, and it does: result contents, fit explanation, caveats, aggregate counts, nearest misses, and both URLs. Combined with full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 already fully documented and the baseline is 3. The description contributes only a concrete illustration of port_requirements (60×100G + 4×400G); it adds no meaning to vendors, form_factor, limit, use_case_id, or poe_required beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find published platforms that can serve a port demand') and even defines the ranking semantics (fewest spare ports, then rack units, then headroom). It is clear what the tool returns. However it never mentions or distinguishes itself from its siblings catalog_find_alternatives and catalog_get_platform, so an agent gets no help disambiguating the trio.

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?

The port-demand framing gives strong, concrete context for when this tool is the right call, including a worked example (60×100G plus 4×400G for a ToR switch) and the behavior when nothing fits (nearest misses). There are no explicit exclusions or routing to the sibling tools for alternative or detail lookups, so it falls short of a 5.

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