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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description goes beyond them by confirming no linked-sheet write occurs, disclosing that private catalogs are included, and adding a data-sharing caution plus an injection warning. It does not describe pagination or the volume of results, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Front-loads what is listed and its fields, then adds routing and safety notes in separate sentences. Slightly long for a single-parameter read tool, but each sentence carries distinct content rather than restating the schema.

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 simple one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers returned fields, the alternative tool, permission scope for private catalogs, and handling safety. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret it correctly is missing.

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% and the single brand_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including provenance from list_brands and the disambiguation rule. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lista los catálogos de la marca autorizada') and enumerates exactly what is returned: name, content, public/private level, and product count. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search_catalog_products, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative with its triggering condition: 'para consultar productos actuales usa search_catalog_products'. It also clarifies scope (authorized brand, including private catalogs) and the schema reinforces the brand_id selection rule, leaving little to inference.

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