Catalog List Tool

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states a read-only 'List' action and gives the entity scope, but says nothing about whether the optional query filters results, pagination, or other side effects. This is minimal but not misleading.

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, front-loaded with the action, and the long entity list is necessary information rather than filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 2-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the main resource and entity values but is incomplete around query behavior and sibling differentiation. It is minimally viable, with clear gaps.

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?

The description adds valid values for the 'entity' parameter by listing supported entity types, which is useful given 0% schema coverage. However, the 'query' parameter is not mentioned at all, so its filtering semantics remain unexplained.

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 opens with the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'first-class catalog and metadata entities', then enumerates supported entity types. This clearly identifies the tool's scope, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling list tools like entity_list_tool.

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 supported-entity list implies when to use the tool (e.g., for shopping_lists or quantity_units), but there is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of alternatives. Given the large sibling set, an agent would still have to infer where this differs from other list tools.

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