integration_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful facts beyond that—results come from a fixed snapshot and are metadata only, not runnable tools—but says nothing about snapshot freshness or result shape.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The second sentence is terse enough to be slightly cryptic rather than wasteful.

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?

An output schema and rich annotations reduce the burden, so the definition is close to sufficient. Still, for a search tool the conventions of the query string and the stale-snapshot caveat are exactly what an agent needs and are only half-addressed.

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 carry parameter meaning and does not. Neither 'query' (matching semantics, empty-string default) nor 'limit' (max 70, default 20) is explained, leaving an agent to guess whether query is free text, name prefix, or filter syntax.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search the snapshot of the complete official AWS MCP catalog.' That distinguishes it from review-oriented siblings like mcp_config_review and from aws_knowledge_search, though the 'snapshot' framing is left undefined.

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?

Usage is only implied by the noun 'catalog' and the caveat that discovery entries are not hosted/executed tools. There is no explicit statement of when to reach for this over mcp_server_review or aws_knowledge_search, and no exclusion guidance.

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