search_catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether this is read-only (implied by search, but not explicit), how results are returned, whether the catalog is comprehensive, or any rate limits. It adds almost nothing beyond the name.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No waste, but also no useful elaboration. For a tool with this many unknowns, being this short is a weakness, not a strength.

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and a rich set of sibling tools, the description is far too thin. It does not explain the catalog contents, the search semantics, or how it relates to the other search tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but many other gaps remain.

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 for both parameters. It says nothing about what 'query' searches (full text? identifiers?) or what 'limit' controls (max results? pagination size?). This is a severe gap.

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 and resource ('Search the Andorra source catalog'), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like bopa_search, stats_search, or govern_search, which all appear to be domain-specific search tools within the same ETL system.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling search tools (bopa_search, stats_search, govern_search). The agent is left to guess that 'search_catalog' is a general catalog lookup while the others are domain-specific.

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