list_indicator_catalog

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

readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already cover the safety profile, so the description's contribution is payload disclosure: it tells the agent the catalog includes typed parameter metadata (default/min/max), outputs, pane assignment, permitted expression functions, and syntax rules. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't say whether results are paginated or how large the catalog is.

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?

A single dense sentence with the workflow anchor ('building blocks for custom_analysis and create_hook') front-loaded, then a semicolon-delimited list of contents. Every clause earns its place, though the semicolon chaining is slightly harder to scan than separate sentences would be.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so by naming the five content categories an agent will encounter. What is missing is any hint of response shape or volume, which matters for an open-world catalog tool, keeping it below 5.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and no parameter explanation is required. The description's mention of 'typed parameters (default, min, max)' correctly refers to properties of the returned indicators, not to inputs, and does not confuse the agent.

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 enumerates the resource contents precisely: catalog indicators with typed parameters (default, min, max), outputs, pane, allowed expression functions and syntax. It clearly reads as a reference/catalog lookup rather than a computation, and it ties itself to the custom_analysis and create_hook siblings. It never states the verb ('list'/'returns') and doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from technical_indicators, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'building blocks for custom_analysis and create_hook' implies the workflow (consult this before authoring an analysis or hook), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no condition for choosing it over technical_indicators or list_hooks, and no exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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