search_card_catalog

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the search is 'faceted' and returns suites, which is useful but does not disclose behaviors such as result ordering, pagination beyond the limit parameter, or what happens when no matches are found. It does not contradict the annotation.

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 and front-loaded with the main action ('Search the invitation design catalog'), and the second sentence explains the result shape. Each part earns its place, though the phrase 'faceted search returning suites' is slightly awkward and could be more precise.

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 simple read-only search tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is searched, what filters are relevant, and what is returned. It does not need to explain return values in detail since 'returning suites' provides sufficient orientation.

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%, and both 'limit' and 'card_type' already carry explanatory descriptions. The description only restates that matching is based on card type, adding little semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Search') and resource ('the invitation design catalog'), and explicitly describes the result ('returning suites matching the requested card type'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from related searches like search_registry_products or search_vendors by anchoring it in the invitation design domain.

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 implies use when searching for invitation card suites, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as search_registry_products or search_vendors. The domain is clear, yet the guidance relies entirely on inference from the catalog reference.

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