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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a key scope constraint (this server holds published library catalogs only, unlike the local preview server), but it does not state safety/read-only nature, pagination, or result-size behavior.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the required-param hint, then the scope caveat. No filler, though the ordering could bury the server-scope distinction slightly.

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 explained. The description covers the primary scope constraint, required parameter provenance, and the key server-confusion risk, which is sufficient for a simple two-param list tool.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates that 'catalog' is required and where ids come from, adding only marginal meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 (List) and resource (Compose previews and published metadata of one hosted catalog), which is clear. However, it does not distinguish this list operation from nearby siblings like catalog_get_preview_data or catalog_render_preview, so an agent can't tell it apart from those without opening schemas.

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?

Provides an explicit when-not: previews of the project you are editing come from the local compose-preview-mcp server, not here. It also notes the required catalog id source. It stops short of naming in-server alternatives for fetching a single preview's data.

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