describe_client_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds useful context about the tool's behavior: requesting a column returns up to 10 common values and that the list is 'truncated is not exhaustive.' This informs the agent about output limitations, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the primary action and resource. It avoids extraneous prose and every clause adds meaningful information, from the queryable columns to the truncation caveat.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable overview but lacks some context. It doesn't explain what 'FYI' refers to, what happens if 'column' is null (all columns?), or how 'include_common_values' alters the output. The truncation note is helpful, but overall it feels incomplete for an agent to fully predict behavior.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only mentions 'Request one column,' which maps to the 'column' parameter, but it fails to clarify the role of 'include_common_values.' The phrase 'up to 10 common values' could relate to that boolean, but it's ambiguous whether common values are always included or only when the flag is true. This leaves significant ambiguity for a key parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Describe queryable FYI CSV columns.' This provides a specific verb ('describe') and resource ('queryable FYI CSV columns'), and the context of the sibling tools (e.g., describe_autofyi) distinguishes it by the resource being described. It is not a tautology and gives a concrete purpose.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It says 'Request one column' but provides no guidance on when to choose this over siblings like query_client_catalog or describe_autofyi, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is only implied.

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