Inspect Catalog Unit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not repeat those. It adds valuable context: the returned JSON is the canonical authored detail but does not guarantee source executability. This caveat goes beyond the structured metadata and helps the agent understand the data's limitations.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence adds a necessary caveat but is somewhat densely worded; overall it is efficient with no filler.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential points: what is returned, the parameter meaning, and a key caveat. Since the output schema exists, the lack of explicit return-format explanation is acceptable. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit guidance on how to discover catalog ids.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that unitId is the catalog id, which gives the parameter meaning beyond the schema's pattern constraint. However, it does not explain how to obtain a valid id or whether the format has any special restrictions beyond what the schema already encodes.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('canonical installed redistributable SRD Unit record') for a single catalog id. This distinguishes it from the sibling list_catalog_units, which presumably returns multiple units. The caveat about executability adds nuance without clouding the core purpose.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving a specific unit when you have a catalog id, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over list_catalog_units or how to obtain the id in the first place. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving usage context to be inferred.

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