square_catalog_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no pagination semantics, no default or maximum limit, no note that access_token is a required prerequisite for every call.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and a clear sibling alternative, the description should explain the listing/pagination model and how it differs from square_catalog_search. It covers only the purpose, leaving the agent to infer cursor handling and the required auth token.

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 only 25% — only the types parameter is documented. The description's example object types loosely relate to types but add nothing beyond the schema, and limit, cursor, and access_token are undocumented in both schema and description.

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 verb (List) and resource (Square catalog objects) and names example object types (items, categories, taxes), which is more concrete than the name alone. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling tool square_catalog_search, so an agent cannot tell list-vs-search behavior from the text.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than square_catalog_search, and no mention of pagination flow or how to page through results with the cursor. The only implicit guidance is that it returns catalog objects generally.

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