List what this organisation has configured

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that results are tagged base/custom/base+custom. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates scope and tagging. Every phrase adds information; there is no filler.

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 read-only list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema is complete: it states what is returned (catalog entries with tags), what filters exist (kind, topic), and the summary behavior when kind is omitted. Safety is covered by annotations.

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 100% ('Limit to one kind. Omit for a summary of everything.', 'Limit to entries in one topic.'), so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description's enumeration of kinds overlaps with the schema enum but adds no new meaning beyond it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and a specific resource ('catalog entries'), then enumerates the seven kinds ('agents, skills, knowledge, runbooks, topics, tools, connectors') and the tagging dimension ('base, custom, or base+custom'). This clearly distinguishes list_catalog from siblings like get_entry or 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 and title provide clear context: use this to list what the organisation has configured. The schema adds parameter-level guidance ('Limit to one kind. Omit for a summary of everything.'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it misses the top bar.

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