catalog_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is aggregate totals across a specific list of entity types rather than raw records, which is useful context. It does not disclose scoping (whole db vs. one catalog), freshness, or cost, so with annotations it is adequate but not rich.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the enumerated metrics are compact and relevant. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is low-complexity and read-only, and no output schema exists, so listing the returned totals is helpful. However, the required db parameter is unexplained and the description does not clarify scope or differentiate from summarize_dataset, leaving gaps an agent must resolve.

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 single required parameter, db, has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it — no indication whether it is a database name, path, or catalog identifier. The simple one-parameter signature slightly mitigates the gap, but the description still fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 purpose: totals for schema-v2 catalogs, and enumerates the metrics returned (datasets, versions, runs, lineage edges, formats, episodes, frames, duration). Clear verb+resource, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling summarize_dataset, which could also produce summary metrics.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives such as catalog_search, catalog_history, or summarize_dataset are named. The phrase 'Totals for schema-v2 catalogs' hints at a reporting use case, but selection is left entirely to inference.

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