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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds useful context about the catalog's scope (analysts, topics, instruments) and its role as a name-resolution step, which goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states what the catalog contains, and the second gives action-oriented usage guidance. The structure is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only catalog tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the catalog contains and when to use it, and nothing else is needed to invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description mentions the entity categories the catalog covers, which is semantically useful even though there are no parameters to document.

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 identifies the resource as the catalog of analysts, topics, and instruments tracked by Headge, and states its purpose: resolving names before other tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns,' but the meaning is clear and it is implicitly differentiated from the individual getter siblings.

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 description gives clear timing guidance: use this tool to resolve names before using other tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but for a zero-parameter catalog tool the context is sufficient.

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