service_catalog

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

The description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects (e.g., order_now is likely destructive), or required permissions. No annotations exist to compensate. While actions like 'catalogs_list' are read-only, actions like 'cart_checkout' imply write operations, but this is not clarified.

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 well-structured with a clear opening line and a bullet list of parameters. It is reasonably concise given the complexity of 11 parameters and multiple actions. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., repeating action names in parameter explanations), but overall it is efficient.

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 tool with 11 parameters and many actions, the description covers most critical usage aspects: parameter-action mappings and defaults. Since an output schema exists, the lack of return value descriptions is acceptable. However, ordering constraints or pagination details could be more explicit.

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 input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description adds meaningful context by explicitly listing which parameters apply to which actions (e.g., sys_id for catalog_get). This significantly compensates for the schema gap, though a few parameters like 'variables' could have more detail on format.

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 clearly states that this tool handles Service Catalog operations by dispatching on an 'action' parameter. It enumerates specific actions like catalogs_list and order_now, making the resource explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'query' or 'record_read', which might also handle catalog-related data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply lists actions without indicating preferred use cases or dependencies. Given the sibling tools (e.g., 'query', 'record_read'), explicit guidance on when to use this dispatcher would improve clarity.

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