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

With only readOnlyHint available, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it explains empty results, per-row source attribution, when extra fields like version_count and source_count appear, and when a record is retained despite no current catalog printing it. This is exactly the kind of edge-case and return-shape context annotations do not cover.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and most subsequent sentences carry necessary output-shape or edge-case information. The wording is dense and occasionally awkward, but the length is largely justified by the absence of an output 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 list tool with no output schema, the description explains the key row semantics, source ownership, and multi-form/multi-source edge cases. It could do more to describe the response envelope or pagination behavior, but it covers enough for an agent to understand what comes back.

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 schema already documents unitid, limit, and offset fully. The description does not add parameter syntax, defaults, or usage nuances beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states the resource and scope clearly: published catalog editions held for an institution. It also distinguishes this list from the one-record form retrieval, though it does not name the sibling get_catalog explicitly and opens with a question rather than a direct verb-resource phrase.

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?

It gives clear routing context: forms with their own content and sources come from the one-record get, never from a list. This tells the agent when to use find_catalogs versus get_catalog for forms, but it does not list explicit exclusions or describe when another catalog-related sibling would be preferred.

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