reddit get catalogs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful fact — catalogs belong to the business that owns the ad account, implying the account ID drives the lookup — but says nothing about pagination behavior, response shape, or what an empty catalog list means. With annotations carrying most of the burden, a 3 fits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the routing and behavioral detail scored above.

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 and annotations are rich, so return values and safety need no explanation. Still, with four closely related catalog/product tools in the sibling list, the description is too thin to resolve which tool to call, and it omits whether the read is scoped by business or account-side defaults.

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 100%, so limit, cursor, and adAccountId are all fully documented in the schema, including the a2_... ID format and the 'not the business ID' caveat. The description adds only a light scoping clarification and no syntax or format beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Read') and resource ('product catalogs') plus the ownership scope ('of the business owning the ad account'), so an agent knows what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like reddit_get_products, reddit_get_product_sets, or reddit_get_catalog_imports, which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. Given four sibling tools in the catalog/product family, an agent has to guess which one to pick, and the description offers no routing signal.

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