fastmean_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context about the detail flag (native defaults, bounds, validation schemas) and a provenance caveat about numerical test evidence, but that final sentence is cryptic and doesn't say how the caller should act on it.

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 opening sentence and the 'start here' routing cue are well front-loaded and earn their place. The closing sentence about numerical test evidence versus observed native factory geometry is dense jargon that adds ambiguity rather than value.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but for a three-input discovery tool with zero schema coverage the description leaves query and include_service undefined and never clarifies the cryptic evidence-provenance clause. An agent could not reliably construct a filtered or service-inclusive catalog call from this.

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 carry all parameter meaning. It only partially explains 'detail'; 'query' (search semantics? substring? kind name?) and 'include_service' receive no explanation at all, leaving two of three inputs guesswork.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Discover native FASTMEAN element kinds, aliases, pins and parameter schemas' tells the agent exactly what is returned. It implies a boundary with creation tools ('Start here before creating...'), though it doesn't name a specific sibling such as fastmean_inspect or fastmean_search_manual as the alternative.

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?

'Start here before creating an unfamiliar component' is clear positive guidance on when to invoke. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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