list_catalogs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the accepts_name nuance (opaque ids upstream vs human names here) and distinguishes closed vs open value sets, which is valuable beyond a simple listing. It doesn't cover potential error conditions or pagination, but for a read-only list tool this is adequate.

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 and logically structured: it states the core purpose, adds a usage directive, and then explains key data semantics. Every sentence earns its place, and the critical usage instruction is front-loaded before the detailed nuances.

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 there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context for correct usage: it tells when to use it, what it returns, and how to interpret the returned data. It doesn't need to explain return structure since the output schema covers that, and it fully prepares the agent to interact with catalog_search.

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, so the baseline per guidelines is 4. The description adds no parameter-related meaning because there are none, and the schema coverage is complete (empty properties). No deduction is needed.

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 the tool lists configured catalogs and the vocabulary each accepts, including specific details like filter names, types, allowed values, and sort options. It explicitly references the sibling catalog_search, distinguishing itself as a precursor rather than a search or retrieval tool.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Call this before `catalog_search`' and explains why, so an agent knows exactly when to invoke it. It also clarifies how to interpret results for filtering, which is actionable and context-specific.

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