mdan_ecosystem_catalog

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

readOnlyHint already covers the non-destructive safety profile; the description adds that the operation pages through a categorized listing. It does not disclose output shape, paging stability, or response size, but annotations lower the burden.

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, with the verb front-loaded and the parenthetical supplying the only necessary context. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool is low-complexity: no required parameters, read-only annotation, and a clear listing purpose. With no output schema, the return shape is only described as a categorized list, but that is sufficient for this pagination tool; missing alternative routing is more a usage-guideline gap than a completeness gap.

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 documents offset as a character offset and provides bounds/defaults; the description only adds that these are pagination controls via 'Page through'. The length parameter's meaning remains only partially specified, and the description does not clarify that pagination is character-based.

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 gives a specific action ('Page through') and resource ('MDAN ecosystem catalog'), with a parenthetical clarifying the catalog is a categorized list of known components. It does not explicitly compare itself to siblings like mdan_ecosystem_search or mdan_ecosystem_read, but the browsing/list semantics are distinguishable.

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 implies 'use this when you need to page through the catalog' but provides no when-not conditions or alternative tools. With siblings such as ecosystem_search and ecosystem_read nearby, the routing guidance is left to inference.

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