Shapeless tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the required read scope (an auth prerequisite) and that results include each tool's schema and pricing. No rate limits or pagination behavior are mentioned, but the added context is substantive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition and the clarifying note about tools that also exist standalone. The parenthetical sibling enumeration is mildly expendable but earns its place by preempting confusion about duplicate-looking tools.

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 zero parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what remains: what the catalog contains and the scope required to read it. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, though a pointer to capabilities_list would make the routing fully unambiguous.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies a parameterless catalog read without introducing confusing or nonexistent arguments.

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 specific resource — the live catalog of the studio agent's tools — and states what each entry contains (JSON Schema input and default price). It clearly orients the agent but never contrasts itself with nearby siblings like capabilities_list or agents_list, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

"This is the read for what the deployment serves right now" gives a clear condition for use, and "Needs the read scope" flags the prerequisite. There is no statement of when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for a similar need, so it stops short of the top score.

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