get_catalog_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states that the tool returns a single catalog entry with effect/stats where casclash provides them. It does not disclose what happens when no entry is found, whether the result is a full object or a summary, pagination, or any other behavioral trait.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is compact, though the parenthetical is slightly cryptic and could be clearer without much added length.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain what categories exist, what the returned entry looks like, or how this relates to the catalog system referenced by sibling tools like list_catalog and list_categories.

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% and the description does not add any meaning to the two required parameters, 'category' and 'name'. The agent is left to guess valid category values or name formats.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get one catalog entry') and adds a qualifier about effect/stats from casclash, which helps distinguish it from broader listing tools. It is not a tautology, though it could be more explicit about what a 'catalog entry' contains.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There are many sibling getter and search tools, but the description does not explain why an agent should choose get_catalog_entry over list_catalog, get_game_table, or search_game_data.

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