Catalog record for one document

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful traits: no date field is ever returned, and embedded directives in source text are quoted data rather than instructions (prompt-injection defense). It does not, however, describe error or miss behavior for an unknown Bates number.

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 payload sentence is dense and front-loaded, and the two guardrail sentences are short and functional. Nothing is wasted, though the citation rule is phrased broadly enough that it reads as boilerplate appended to the tool's core contract.

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-value shape need not be explained, and the description correctly flags the one notable payload gap (no date field) plus the trust level of source text. It is complete enough to call correctly; only the not-found/failure case is unaddressed.

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% and the schema already supplies the format example (NYC-WTC_000138296); the description only restates 'one Bates number'. Per the baseline rule, 3 is correct when the schema carries parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — returns catalog metadata for a single Bates number from the local snapshot — and enumerates the payload (catalog fields, page-text capture status, adjacent filings). It implicitly draws a boundary with portal_get_page_text (page text lives there, not here), but never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 verbatim-quote rule points an agent at portal_get_page_text when it needs quotable text, and 'local catalog snapshot' hints that a fresher source may exist, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement or named alternative (e.g. portal_search, catalog_search).

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