Service catalog

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world semantics, so the description is free to add real context — the exact filter rule (broken/gone excluded) and the augmented fields — which it does. The warning that 'provider texts are third-party content' is a valuable trust caveat an agent would otherwise miss; only pagination/response-size behavior is left unaddressed.

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 sentences with no filler. The catalog definition, its delta fields and the third-party content caveat are all front-loaded, and no clause restates the name or title.

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 structure needn't be explained, yet the description still flags the fields it adds and the env-key data that feeds deploy_service. For a no-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only the relationship to the other list_* siblings is unstated.

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?

Zero parameters and a 100% covered schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing parameter-wise because there is nothing to add.

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 the resource precisely (deployable service catalog) and defines it operationally: CashPilot catalog minus services marked broken or gone, augmented with deployed, has_collector and node_count. The 'can be deployed' framing implicitly separates it from list_deployed_services, but the near-twin sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

Mentions that each entry carries 'the env keys deploy_service needs', which implies the downstream workflow, but never states when to call this versus list_deployed_services or get_compose. No exclusions, no prerequisites, no explicit chaining instruction.

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