query_catalog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior via offset/limit, return format (Page_Response dict with items, total, etc.), and query types. It does not mention side effects, but the tool is clearly read-only based on context. Overall, transparent.

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 concise, well-structured with bullet points and sections. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidance, parameter details, return format. No fluff.

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?

Given no output schema, the description includes the return format. It covers all four parameters and their semantics. It provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly. Minor gap: could mention that the tool is read-only (implied but not explicit).

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%, so the description must compensate. It describes the query_type enum values, explains when query_value is required, and clarifies offset/limit defaults and range. It also adds the return format beyond schema. This adds significant meaning.

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 it queries OSCAL Catalog documents, enumerates query types, and differentiates from sibling tool list_catalogs by instructing to discover catalogs first. This provides a specific verb-resource pairing and distinguishes the tool's 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 explicitly advises using list_catalogs to discover available catalogs first, then drilling into specific ones with query_catalog. It explains when to use each query_type and when query_value is required. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives beyond list_catalogs.

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