gateway_access_package_catalog

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'List' verb aligns with that safe-read behavior. The description adds the meaningful restriction that only requestable packages are returned. It does not cover pagination or output ordering, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for that detail.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the distinguishing scope.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description is entirely sufficient. An agent understands exactly what to expect and when to use this tool.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters requiring documentation. The description still clarifies what the catalog contains, which is useful context beyond the empty schema.

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 identifies the action (List) and resource (business access packages), and narrows the scope to packages an employee may request, distinguishing it from the admin-oriented gateway_admin_access_package_catalog sibling. This precision lets an agent select it correctly without opening schemas.

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 'that an employee may request' establishes the intended context: this is for employee-requestable packages rather than admin-managed catalogs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a simple list-only tool.

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