What deleting a Meta catalog would destroy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it is free, read-only, costs 0 credits, and avoids aiming the destructive call at the target to read its refusal. It also explains the rationale for existing, which adds value beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction.

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 multi-sentence but every sentence earns its place: purpose, safety, rationale, and linkage to delete_meta_catalog. The critical call-to-action ('CALL THIS BEFORE PROPOSING A DELETE') is front-loaded. No filler; structured effectively.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns: number of products, product sets, the exact deletion-cost sentence, and the catalog's exact name needed by delete_meta_catalog. It also covers cost and read-only nature. For a preflight tool, this is fully complete—an agent knows exactly what to expect and how to use the result.

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 schema has 100% coverage with a description 'numeric catalog id from list_meta_catalogs'. The tool description does not add further semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. The mention of the catalog name is a return value, not parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Read what is INSIDE a product catalog'), the resource (product catalog), and the exact output (count of products, product sets, and the deletion-cost sentence). It clearly differentiates from siblings like delete_meta_catalog and list_meta_catalogs by being a read-only preflight 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?

Explicitly instructs to 'CALL THIS BEFORE PROPOSING A DELETE', explains the permanent nature of deletion (no archive, no undo), and notes that it provides the exact catalog name required by delete_meta_catalog. This gives clear when-to-use and why-to-use guidance, and implicitly when not to use (after deletion is proposed).

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