search_card_catalog

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating no destructive side effects. The description's 'Search' verifies this, but adds no additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits, or sorting). It meets the baseline without contradiction.

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?

Two short sentences, 11 words total, with no redundancy. Every word adds value: 'Search' as verb, 'invitation design catalog' as resource, 'faceted search' as method, and 'returning suites matching card type' as outcome.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description partially compensates by stating it returns suites. It also implies the use of card_type as filter. The limit default is in schema. Slight gap: no mention of sorting or ordering, but adequate for a simple search.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions. The description adds 'faceted search' context and ties card_type to the return, but doesn't enrich meaning 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 clearly states the tool searches the invitation design catalog and returns suites matching the requested card type. It uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('invitation design catalog'), distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_registry_products or search_themes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. Among 70+ sibling tools, the description only implies usage for searching card suites by type, leaving the agent without decision-making cues.

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