Get Catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing on top of that — no error behavior for an unknown id, no note that other-organization catalogs may be visible given the open-world hint, no slug-vs-UUID implications.

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?

A single seven-word sentence with no filler and the resource named up front. It is efficient, though so terse that it flirts with under-specification rather than being optimally sized.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only getter with an output schema, the description plus structured fields are largely sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. The missing piece is disambiguation from the many other catalog retrieval tools, which the description never addresses.

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 coverage is 100% and the id property already documents UUID-or-slug forms plus the explicit warning that no catalog_id argument exists. The description's "by id" simply restates the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ("Retrieves") and resource ("a specific catalog") with the lookup key (id), so an agent knows exactly what it does. It does not distinguish itself from catalog-adjacent siblings such as get_catalog_entity or list_catalogs, leaving that differentiation to the tool name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the list_catalogs alternative for enumeration, and no note about when a catalog entity or property lookup is the right call instead. The agent must infer all routing decisions from the name and the surrounding tool list.

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