search_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the 'Offline' behavioral trait and what the returned entries contain. This supplements, rather than contradicts, the annotation. The bar is lower due to the annotation, and the added context is valuable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Searches the catalog'), and every clause adds relevant information (languages, content, filters, offline nature). No redundant or vague wording.

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?

This is a simple, read-only search tool with no output schema and only optional filters. The description fully covers what the tool does, what results contain, supported filters, and the offline behavior. Nothing critical is missing for a tool of this complexity.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions (keyword, category, language) at 100% coverage. The description repeats some examples ('Lexical, Rhetorical...') but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: it searches a catalog of AI-writing 'signs' with English/Spanish coverage, and describes what each entry contains (why it reads as AI and how to fix it). It differentiates itself from sibling analysis tools by explicitly calling it a reference/study aid.

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 context on when to use it ('Useful as a reference / study aid, or to explain a finding in depth'). It implies it is not the primary analysis tool but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so not a full 5.

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