settings_catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: read-only nature is only implied by "Search", and pagination via limit/offset, search scope, matching behavior, and cost are unmentioned. An output schema exists, so return shape is partly covered, but the behavioral profile of the call remains opaque.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the terseness tips into under-specification rather than true economy.

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 search tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and many overlapping siblings, the definition is missing the essentials: what corpus is searched, how results are ordered, and when this is preferable to settings_read. The output schema offsets the return-value gap, but not the invocation gap.

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% across all three parameters (query, limit, offset), so the description must compensate and largely does not. The one partial assist is enumerating searchable facets (names, types, labels, enums, ranges), which hints at what query matches, but limit/offset and default/empty-query behavior are left completely undocumented.

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?

"Search source-derived setting names, types, labels, enums and ranges" gives a verb (Search) and a resource (setting catalog), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, "source-derived" and "(hints)" are unexplained jargon, and nothing distinguishes this catalog lookup from siblings like settings_read, settings_compare, or settings_validate.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus settings_read (read a value) or settings_compare (diff values). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of the discovery-then-read workflow that would justify a catalog tool.

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