GetCatalog

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. The description only states what the tool does at a high level ('get details') without explaining what kind of details are returned, whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, or what happens when the catalog doesn't exist. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise - a single Chinese phrase that directly states the tool's purpose. While this is efficient, it may be too brief given the complexity of the domain. There's no wasted language, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose but lacks supporting details.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, the response format, error conditions, or how this differs from the sibling ListCatalogs tool. Given the data cataloging domain complexity and the presence of a similar sibling tool, more contextual information would be needed for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100% with comprehensive documentation of the single 'Id' parameter including format examples for different catalog types. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the schema does the heavy lifting while the description doesn't add value but doesn't need to compensate for gaps either.

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 '获取数据地图数据目录详情' translates to 'Get data map data catalog details' which clearly indicates a retrieval operation on a catalog resource. However, it doesn't specify what 'details' include or differentiate this from the sibling tool 'ListCatalogs' which presumably lists multiple catalogs rather than retrieving details of a specific one. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the scope of details returned.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a sibling tool 'ListCatalogs' present, there's no indication whether GetCatalog is for single-item retrieval while ListCatalogs is for bulk listing, or if they serve different purposes. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage information is provided.

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