List Catalog Entity Properties

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's main added value is the deprecation status — a genuine behavioral trait that annotations cannot express and that should steer the agent away. It does not mention pagination behavior or how filtered results behave, which keeps it below a 5.

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 deprecation warning is correctly front-loaded and the alternative guidance is compact. The trailing restatement of the tool name adds nothing, but overall the text is tight.

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 explanation, and the deprecation story is complete. However, for an 11-parameter tool with 27% coverage, an agent forced to call it (legacy compatibility) has no description-level guidance on pagination, sorting, or the filter parameters, leaving a substantial gap.

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?

With 11 parameters and only 27% schema description coverage, the description must carry weight, but it says nothing about sort, include, page_size, page_number, filter_key, or the four filter_created_at_* bounds. The only parameter-like token (`include=fields`) refers to a different endpoint, not to this tool's `include` enum (catalog_entity, catalog_field), so it could even mislead.

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 name/title are restated verbatim in "List Catalog Entity Properties." — tautological rather than explanatory. The deprecation sentence incidentally reveals the resource is "field values" for a catalog entity, which is the only real content about what the tool returns. An agent can infer the resource but gets no statement of scope or how it differs from the singular get_catalog_entity_property or list_catalog_properties siblings.

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?

It explicitly declares a when-not-to-use condition ("Deprecated") and names concrete alternatives with the exact syntax to use instead (`include=fields` on catalog entities, or native catalog endpoints such as teams, services, functionalities, incident_types, causes, environments). This is exactly the routing information an agent needs to avoid picking this tool.

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