catalogue

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false annotations, and adds the useful behavioral detail that no wallet or payment is required. It does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as output shape or potential external dependencies, but annotations already cover the main safety profile.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The main capability is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the payment clarification in the second sentence is immediately useful without adding unnecessary length.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. It could be more explicit about the 'kind' parameter values and the default, but nothing critical appears missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 carries the burden of explaining the 'kind' parameter. The phrase 'free services, voices, schema or cloning requirements' enumerates likely values for 'kind', providing meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. It does not explicitly mention the default 'services' value or confirm exact accepted strings, but it is still clearly helpful.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and names concrete resources: 'free services, voices, schema or cloning requirements.' It clearly positions the tool as a read-only catalog, and the phrase 'No wallet or payment needed' helps distinguish it from the purchase and payment siblings, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: to read free offerings without needing a wallet or payment. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, but the no-payment guidance implies it is the appropriate choice for browsing free resources.

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