list_catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does so well: it notes that the tool is 'live,' 'unauthenticated,' and 'not billed' despite being a billed-utility catalog. It also reveals the return payload shape and that the catalog may include routes with outbound_io flags, so the agent understands side effects and access requirements.

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 compact, front-loaded with the most important trait (unauthenticated, not billed), and organized into usage, args, and returns. Every line adds value; there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple optional-boolean catalog tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains why to call it, what the parameter does, and what the return payload contains. It even provides the next-step guidance to call a named tool or call_enrichr(path, body), making the full workflow clear.

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 0% and the parameter has only a title, so the description must fully explain semantics. It does: 'outbound_io_only' is described with its exact filtering behavior and a list of example external systems (VAT, HIBP, IP geo, MX, currency, postal). This goes well beyond the bare boolean 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 states a specific action ('list' the live billed-utility catalog), identifies the resource (routes, prices, rate limits, outbound_io flags), and clarifies its role as a discovery entry point. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining that after catalog discovery you call a named tool or call_enrichr(path, body).

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use this tool to discover routes and metadata before invoking other tools, giving clear context. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use cases or directly compare with alternative discovery tools, but the guidance is sufficient for a catalog tool.

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