Read one catalog entry in full

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds some useful context about what 'full content' includes for different kinds, but it does not mention error behavior, missing slugs, or return format. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage but not especially rich.

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, front-loaded sentence states the action and scope, with an em-dash list of examples. There is no wasted wording, and the most important information appears first.

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 readOnly annotations, the description provides enough to call it correctly. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the description's examples of what 'full content' means, though a note about nonexistent entries or return format would make it fully 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 schema documents both parameters and the enum, but only 'name' has a description. The description compensates for the low schema description coverage by mapping kind values to concrete content examples (agent prompt, runbook TOC, connector guardrails), adding semantic depth beyond the bare enum names.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the full content of one catalog entry.' It also enumerates example content types (prompt, skill, runbook with TOC, connector guardrails), which disambiguishes it from siblings like brief, list_catalog, and search_knowledge.

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 when to use this tool: whenever the full content of a specific catalog entry is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'full content' contrast with sibling tools like 'brief' and 'list_catalog' gives clear contextual guidance.

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