adjust get catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the bar is low, and the description still adds real context: results are permission-gated by Adjust, scoping is limited to an allowlisted application, and the metric list is partial rather than complete. That tells the agent to treat the output as an incomplete, entitlement-dependent catalog rather than a definitive one.

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 sentences, both front-loaded with the catalog scope before the permission and completeness caveats. Slightly dense phrasing ('documented standard', 'example metrics') costs a little clarity but nothing is padding.

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 exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, entitlement limits, and incompleteness. The remaining gap is the relationship to the report tools, which the description never states.

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?

There is one parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics ('Exact Adjust application token from ADJUST_APP_TOKENS'). The description only restates the scoping ('one allowlisted application') without adding format, fallback, or error behavior, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource (standard Adjust dimensions and example metrics, plus event metrics for one application), so the catalog/discovery nature is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjust_list_events, which is adjacent in scope, leaving a small ambiguity about what 'event metrics' means here versus that sibling.

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: an agent can infer this is a discovery call that precedes adjust_run_report or adjust_compare_periods, but no sentence says when to call it or when to prefer a sibling. The 'not exhaustive' caveat hints at follow-up behavior without giving direction.

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