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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which set a clear safety profile. The description adds that it returns a 'labeled preview' and supports 'optional symbols, dates, and filters,' which is some extra context. However, no info about error behavior, page size, or what happens with invalid entry IDs. With annotations covering safety, a mid score is appropriate.

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?

Single sentence, concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word earns its place, though the trailing 'optional symbols, dates, and filters' could be seen as slightly vague. No wasted prose or redundant restating of the title.

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?

There is an output schema present, so return values don't need full description. The complexity is moderate (2 params, one nested inputs object). The description covers the essentials but leaves the 'inputs' format and behavior of 'symbols/dates/filters' unclear, and given the open-ended inputs param, more detail on expected structure would improve completeness.

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 50%, with only entry_id documented in the schema (from catalog.list or catalog.describe). The description adds 'symbols, dates, and filters' which hints at the inputs parameter meaning but doesn't specify format, key names, or semantics. The inputs param is an open additionalProperties object with no schema-level detail, so the description partially compensates but leaves significant ambiguity.

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 'Return a labeled preview for one catalog entry with optional symbols, dates, and filters.' This uses a specific verb (return preview) with a resource (catalog entry) and mentions optional modifiers (symbols, dates, filters). It's clear enough, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like catalog_describe, which could be 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?

No guidance on when to use this vs catalog_describe, catalog_list, or catalog_request. The 'preview' concept implies a lightweight look before a request/upgrade, but this isn't stated. The entry_id description references 'from catalog.list or catalog.describe' which implies a prerequisite, but the main description gives no usage context or exclusions.

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