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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: results are newest-first, summaries omit page contents, and archived/deleted catalogs are absent from every result and inaccessible through these tools.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ordering, followed by search guidance, return scope, and archived-catalog caveat. Every sentence adds actionable information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained, but the description still clarifies that summaries contain ids, titles, and counts. Annotations cover safety, and the description covers ordering, search usage, and archived exclusions—everything needed to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful usage semantics for `search`—finding a catalog by title when the user refers to one by name, with an example—going beyond the schema's terse 'case-insensitive match against the catalog title'.

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 ('List the merchant's catalogs') and adds scope details: newest-first ordering, summaries only rather than page contents, and archived exclusion. This clearly distinguishes it from get_catalog and preview tools.

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 tells the agent to use the `search` argument when the user refers to a catalog by name, with a concrete example. It also implicitly steers away from this tool for page contents and archived catalogs, though it does not name an alternative sibling tool explicitly.

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