get_catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is FREE, enumerates returned fields, mentions the provenance URL for every record, and outlines the micropayment flow via get_record. It does not cover pagination behavior or potential rate limits, but the core behavioral context is well covered.

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 leads with the core purpose and return values, then the extensive enumeration of covered data verticals is contextually useful for a catalog tool. While lengthy, the content is relevant and not redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the catalog's scope, filtering options, and the next-step purchasing workflow. The main gap is the lack of detail for `limit`, `offset`, and `record_key`, but the overall context is strong enough for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 compensate. It does explain `source` with concrete examples and `data_type` as a substring, but it omits any explanation of `limit`, `offset`, and `record_key`, which leaves key parameters underspecified.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Browse the OSF catalog (FREE)' and specifically lists what it returns (record_ids, prices, data types, provenance URLs). This distinguishes get_catalog from sibling tools like get_record (purchase) and specialized search_* tools.

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 provides clear usage context: use get_catalog to browse and select records, then 'Call get_record with a record_id to purchase the full record'. It also explains optional filters, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool vs. the specialized search siblings.

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