gateway_admin_access_package_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'List' verb is consistent with that. The description adds the 'versioned' qualifier and the access:read requirement, providing some behavioral context beyond annotations, though it does not explain versioning semantics or output behavior.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core action and the permission requirement are both included efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple (zero params, output schema exists, read-only annotation present), so the short description is mostly sufficient for invoking it. However, it lacks any guidance that would help an agent distinguish this catalog tool from similarly named access-package tools, leaving a meaningful context gap.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully handles parameter documentation. Per the calibration baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description does not need to add parameter detail.

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 clear verb and resource: 'List versioned business access packages.' It clearly identifies the tool's function with the 'versioned' qualifier, which hints at a distinction from siblings like gateway_admin_list_access_packages, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 only states a permission prerequisite ('Requires access:read') and gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many similar access-package list/catalog siblings such as gateway_admin_list_access_packages or gateway_access_package_catalog. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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