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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint), so the description need not restate them; however, it adds almost nothing behavioral beyond the vague 'preserved' vs 'dynamic' distinction. It does not say what determines which catalog is returned, whether results are paged, or how the filters behave.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted filler, so length is fine. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than economy: the one sentence spends its words on jargon that does not resolve the agent's decision.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, but the input side is bare: four undocumented parameters and an ambiguous routing relationship to search_wave_capabilities. For a catalog-listing tool with zero required parameters and rich filter surface, the description leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently.

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 0%, so four parameters (surface, category, maximum_price, maximum_duration_ms) carry no documentation in the structured data. The description mentions 'surface' only in passing and never maps to the four enum values, nor explains the category, price, or duration filters at all, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a resource (the v0/v1 surface or v2/v3 Wave catalog) and implies a listing/describing action, but the terminology is internal jargon ('preserved', 'dynamic v2/v3 Wave catalog') that an agent cannot decode without domain context. It also fails to distinguish itself from the sibling search_wave_capabilities, which reads as performing an overlapping job.

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 word 'or' hints that two catalog variants exist, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to pick this over search_wave_capabilities, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer routing purely from the name.

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