usageCatalogStatus

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing exactly what an agent can expect to learn from the call: configured sources, indexing state, counts, and load errors. This behavioral detail is useful context not present in annotations.

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, no filler. The purpose is front-loaded with the exact decision point ('before relying on observed-query or semantic evidence'), and the second sentence efficiently enumerates return contents. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a low-complexity status tool with one documented parameter, a full output schema, and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only slight gap is that it doesn't explain what the 'usage catalog' is or how it gets populated, but that is unlikely to prevent correct invocation given the explicit readiness framing and rich output schema.

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%: the only parameter, connection, already has a clear description with guidance to call listConnections and not guess. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter detail, so a baseline 3 is appropriate; the schema carries the full semantic burden.

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 ('check whether enabled and ready') and a specific resource ('usage catalog'), and distinguishes itself from query-searching tools with 'without searching for queries'. It also states the exact return contents (configured sources, indexing state, counts, load errors), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to call this tool: before relying on observed-query or semantic evidence, as a readiness gate. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the 'without searching for queries' phrase clarifies that this is not a query-lookup tool, and the sibling list contains obvious alternatives like findQueriesByTable and listQueries.

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