search_catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the access scope ('all accessible libraries') and that three distinct field types are matched, which is meaningful behavioral context for a read tool. It omits anything about result limits, ordering, or how hits are returned, and there is no explicit read-only statement.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a directive on when to reach for it. Every clause carries information; there is no filler.

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?

The existence of an output schema means return values need not be described, lowering the bar. Still, for a three-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves library_contains and max_results unexplained and gives no guidance versus the overlapping check_availability sibling.

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 compensate, and it only partially does: the example keywords ('revenue', 'nace', 'sic', 'orbis') clarify what 'keyword' should contain. The other two parameters, library_contains and max_results (default 200), receive no explanation at all, leaving their meaning and effect undocumented.

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 (Search) and precisely enumerates the searched resource fields (table names, column names, column descriptions) plus the scope (all accessible libraries), which is far more informative than the bare name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling check_availability, which the phrasing 'is X available?' arguably overlaps with.

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?

'Use this first to answer "is X available?" questions' gives an implied entry-point role and usage context. But it never mentions the sibling check_availability or when that tool should be preferred instead, leaving the agent to guess at overlap between the two.

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