get_tool_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful content hint — results carry availability and exclusions — but says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/cursor parameters, so an agent cannot predict result-set handling.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the workflow step and the anti-hallucination instruction. Every sentence carries distinct information; there is no filler to trim.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description gives only a one-line hint about entry contents (availability, exclusions) and nothing about the shape of a catalog entry or how to page through results. For a discovery tool whose whole value is return structure, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions limit, cursor, search or category. An agent must infer from names alone that limit/cursor paginate and that search/category filter the catalog, and defaults and any matching semantics are left entirely to guesswork.

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?

Specific verb ("Browse") plus specific resource ("the official bunq operations"), so the agent knows this is a catalog/discovery call rather than an execution call. It does not name any sibling, but "operations" and the STEP 1 marker distinguish it adequately from execute_tool and the read/history tools.

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?

"STEP 1" positions it as the entry point in a workflow and "Do not guess operation names" tells the agent when it must call this rather than invent an operation. It stops short of explicitly naming the follow-on tool (execute_tool) or the alternative (learn_tools), so the ordering is implied rather than stated.

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