catalog_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no pagination behavior despite a limit parameter, no ordering, no indication of result volume or what 'health score' means operationally.

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 filler; the filter enumeration is the useful part. It is arguably too compressed for an eight-parameter tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 eight parameters, 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description leaves too much open: the meaning of the required db argument, the limit/pagination contract, sort order, and result shape are all unstated. An agent could call it, but could easily pass wrong values for db or limit.

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 the description has to carry parameter meaning. It does name six of the eight parameters (text, format, robot_type, min_episodes, min_duration, min_score) and glosses min_score as 'minimum health score', but leaves db (the only required parameter) and limit completely unexplained, and gives no accepted format strings or units for duration.

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 (Query) and resource (dataset catalog) plus the filter axes, so an agent knows this is a filtered search rather than an index/stats/history call. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from (catalog_index, catalog_stats, catalog_history), so it falls short of a 5.

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 sentence implies 'search the catalog' but gives no when-to-use or when-not guidance, no mention of catalog_index/catalog_stats as alternatives, and no note that at least one filter is expected or that omitting all filters returns everything. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely.

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