Browse the Catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the free/keyless framing aligns and adds context. Description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'top 60' ordering, that it returns a specific shape, and that capability calls are paid while this discovery call is free. Minor gap: doesn't describe pagination, but the top-60 cap makes that moot.

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?

Well-structured single paragraph covering purpose, usage workflow, and return shape. Front-loads the core listing action then workflow guidance. Slightly dense with inline details (fields, ordering, cap, keyless note) but earns its place; no wasted sentences.

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?

Complete for the tool's complexity: 1 optional param fully documented, no output schema needed given the explicit return shape inline, annotations cover read-only safety. The description conveys the return shape ({count, capabilities, note}) directly since there's no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the category parameter with exact-match semantics and examples. The description reinforces 'optionally filtered to one category' but adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource: lists the full MeshMarket catalog with explicit fields (slug, name, kind, category, price, calls), ordering (most-called, top 60), and optional category filter. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings that handle profile, follow, signup, publish, etc.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Use it FIRST' and gives clear workflow: find a capability here, then call its slug as a tool. Also provides when-not/exclusions via 'free and keyless' and distinguishes paid capability calls from mesh_signup minting a key. Names sibling mesh_signup as the follow-up for key minting.

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