get_catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is '≈ a few thousand tokens' and instructs the LLM to scan and pick the best engine. This informs the agent about the size and nature of the response. Could mention if there are rate limits or caching but covers key behavioral traits.

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 direct and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses emphasis (ALL CAPS) for important instructions. While somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value including the usage guidelines and workflow. Minor improvement could be tightening.

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 no output schema, the description explains that the output contains all engines with titles grouped by category and its token size. It also provides the steps after using this tool. Does not mention update frequency or caching, but for a catalog retrieval tool, this is sufficient.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so baseline is 4. Description correctly includes no parameter discussion since none exist. No additional information needed.

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 specific verbs and resources: 'returns the FULL ReefAPI catalog — EVERY engine with its one-line title, grouped by category.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools, especially search_engines, by stating its use case as a fallback when search fails.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this whenever search_engines didn't surface the right engine (or to be sure you didn't miss a better one).' Also includes a clear workflow sequence after picking an engine: get_engine_schema -> get_action_schema -> call_engine.

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