List DataLens REST catalogs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: results are auto-paginated (so the caller need not loop), the endpoint is experimental (stability risk), and an instance without catalogs returns an empty list rather than an error. That is substantive context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the resource and its scope are front-loaded, followed by the two caveats an agent most needs (experimental status, empty-list response). Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers pagination behavior, empty-result handling, and API stability. It does not hint at the shape of a returned catalog, but with no mutating risk and trivial invocation, this is a small residual gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% across all six parameters, including limit, filter, sort_by, reverse_order, include_permissions, and cloud_environment_id, so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, which is the expected baseline when the schema is this complete.

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 names the exact resource (REST catalogs of the DataLens instance) and its scope, so an agent immediately knows what comes back. It is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource statement ('Returns/Lists...'), which is a minor weakness, but the resource is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like datalens_restcatalogs_create.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The 'Experimental in the DataLens API' note is a stability caveat, not usage guidance, so the agent must infer that this is the entry point for discovering REST catalogs.

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