get_catalog_by_id

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; 'Retorna' does signal a read-only retrieval and names the returned content (configurations and custom_fields). However, it does not comment on permissions, not-found behavior, or output shape, which is a noticeable gap for an unannotated tool.

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 sentence with no filler; the verb and object are front-loaded and every word contributes. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter.

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 two-parameter read tool with fully documented params, the description adequately states what is returned (settings and custom_fields). It lacks error or auth context, but the tool is simple enough that the description is largely complete; no output schema exists, so the high-level return content needs to be, and is, mentioned.

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 input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond implying the catalog is identified by the existing catalog_id parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retorna') and a specific resource ('configurações e campos (custom_fields) de um catálogo específico'), so an agent can tell it is a singular catalog lookup rather than a list operation. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like get_catalogs or get_custom_field_by_id, so it slightly misses the top bar.

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 'catálogo específico' implies using this tool when a particular catalog's settings and custom fields are needed, but no when-not-to-use guidance or explicit alternatives are provided. The agent is left to infer the contrast with get_catalogs from the name and wording.

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