get_client_catalog_status

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

With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already indicating a safe read operation, the description adds useful context by specifying the exact output fields (version, age, rows, columns). This goes beyond the annotations but does not address potential side effects or edge cases, which are largely covered by 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the main action, and no redundant words. Every piece of information ('published', 'version, age, rows, columns') earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description fully conveys the purpose and the returned data fields, which is sufficient for this complexity level. It effectively covers the core need without requiring additional details.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids redundant parameter information. It clearly communicates that no inputs are required.

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 specifies the verb ('Check'), the resource ('FYI CSV catalog'), and the exact output scope (version, age, rows, columns). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like describe_client_catalog by focusing on publication status and metrics rather than content.

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 implies its use for checking catalog publication status but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention exclusions. No alternative tools or contrasting conditions are referenced.

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