list_data_catalogs

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 only says 'List data catalogs', which implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state side effects, authorization needs, pagination behavior beyond parameter names, or any other behavioral traits. The output schema covers return shape, but the description itself is extremely thin.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. The Args section is helpful because the schema lacks descriptions. It could be more structurally integrated, but it is appropriately concise.

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?

The tool is simple, has zero required parameters, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks usage context, differentiation from sibling list tools, and any explicit note about pagination behavior beyond the parameter names. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an agent.

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 has no descriptions for parameters, so the description is the only source of parameter semantics. It provides useful meanings for both parameters: 'Maximum number of results to return' and 'Token for pagination'. This is minimal but sufficient for the two simple optional parameters.

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 clear verb and resource: 'List data catalogs'. It is easily understood and distinguishes the operation from sibling tools that target other resources like databases, tables, or work groups. However, it essentially restates the tool name and does not add any scoping or differentiating detail.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_databases or list_tables. The description provides no context about what a data catalog is, when pagination is needed, or when a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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