list_catalogs

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the data source (I14Y) and the meaning of catalogues, but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. With annotations covering most aspects, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is exceptionally concise: two lines for purpose/context, then a bullet-like args list. Every sentence adds value, no waste. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and all parameters. An output schema exists, so return format details are not needed. Given the tool's simplicity (list with pagination), the description is adequately complete.

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 input schema has 3 parameters with defaults and constraints, but no descriptions. The description compensates by documenting each parameter: 'Language for titles', '1-based page number', 'Records per page (1-100)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema, meriting a 4 given the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states that the tool lists catalogues feeding into I14Y, and explains that each catalogue represents an organization's data collection. While the purpose is specific, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_catalog or list_datasets, which could help an agent choose correctly.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_catalog for filtering, list_datasets for sub-resources). The description only explains what catalogues are, not the appropriate context for invocation.

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