search_card_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are aggregated as suites filtered by card type, but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or what facets are actually available, despite the "faceted" claim.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the verb and resource lead immediately. Slightly wasted by the vague "faceted search" phrase that is never substantiated.

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?

Adequate for a simple read-only search with no output schema, but it advertises faceted search while only one facet (card_type) is exposed in the schema, and the limit/return-shape behavior is left to the schema. An agent can call it correctly, but the description overpromises relative to what it explains.

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%, so both limit and card_type are fully documented with defaults and an enum-like list in the schema. The description only echoes the card_type filter ("matching the requested card type") and adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (invitation design catalog) and clarifies the return unit is "suites" matching a requested card type. This reasonably separates it from sibling searches like search_themes or search_vendors, though it doesn't explicitly name a contrasting sibling.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The agent must infer that this is the browse/discovery step versus get_card_suite for fetching a specific suite, or search_themes for website themes; nothing in the text routes that decision.

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