Catalog Details Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation by saying 'Return details,' but it does not explain how entities are resolved, whether permissions are needed, or any error/edge-case behavior. This is minimal beyond the stated purpose.

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 a single short sentence and is front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits critical context about the catalog entity concept and parameter semantics, so the brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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 does not need to be in the description, and there are only two required parameters. Even so, both parameters are undocumented and the phrase 'first-class catalog entity record' is not explained, leaving an agent unable to reliably construct a valid call.

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%, and the description adds no meaning for the 'entity' or 'obj_id' parameters. An agent cannot determine acceptable entity values, whether obj_id is a catalog-internal ID or a raw database ID, or how the two parameters relate.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('details for a first-class catalog entity record'), so an agent can infer this is a lookup/read tool. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like catalog_list_tool, describe_entity_tool, or entity_list_tool, and 'first-class catalog entity' is left undefined.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as catalog_list_tool or describe_entity_tool. The description gives no context for selection, no exclusions, and no mention of when not to use it.

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