List CERIF 1.6 entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add context about the catalog composition (293 total) and that query searches names and descriptions, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, the default limit is 100, or describe the response format. For a list tool, this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and valuable counts, followed by concise parameter guidance. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description should compensate by clarifying the return structure. It mentions the catalog and that query searches names/descriptions, hinting at return fields, but it does not explicitly state the response format, default limit behavior, or whether results are paginated. For a listing tool with 3 params, this is a gap but not severe.

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 already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (kind, limit, query), with 100% coverage. The description essentially paraphrases the schema ('cap results' for limit, 'search names and descriptions' for query) without adding new syntactic or format details beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 the tool lists the CERIF 1.6 entity catalog, with specific counts for each category. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_entity, which retrieves a specific entity. The verb 'Lists' and resource 'entity catalog' are specific and unambiguous.

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 description explains parameter usage ('Use `kind` to filter...') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_entity or list_schemes. The usage context is implied ('catalog'), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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