Catalog totals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the verifiability metadata of the snapshot (capture time, SHA-256) and by stating the evidence-vs-inference policy for downstream answers, which is real behavioral context an agent would not get from structured fields.

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 identifying sentence is front-loaded and tight; the two policy sentences that follow add value but read as server-level boilerplate that could be shared rather than repeated per tool. Still, no sentence is pure filler, and the ordering puts purpose 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile for a zero-parameter call. The one remaining gap is that the description never says when this tool is the right choice versus catalogue search or change-tracking siblings.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain inputs, and the enumeration of output dimensions is a bonus rather than a parameter-semantics contribution.

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 opening sentence names the resource (catalog snapshot on this machine) and enumerates exactly what it aggregates: documents, pages, bytes and counts by source, agency and production volume, plus capture time and SHA-256. That is specific enough to distinguish it from portal_browse, portal_search and portal_get_document, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of portal_get_page_text as the place verbatim quotes must come from indirectly signals that this tool is not for retrieving content, so an agent can infer it is for aggregate/statistical questions. There is no explicit 'use this when you need totals rather than documents' statement and no exclusions relative to catalog_search or portal_changes_since.

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