Catalog Find Instance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: it performs lookup by resourceId, returns the instance id plus profile attributes, and exposes whether the asset has been profiled via analysisTimeStamp. This gives the agent a good mental model of what will happen without contradicting 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then builds context efficiently. Every sentence earns its place: one sentence for purpose, one for relation to catalog_search and key return fields, one for the downstream tool. The use of backticks for identifiers keeps it scannable without unnecessary verbosity.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with a rich output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains the input, the output, the relationship to sibling tools, and the practical use case. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool is missing.

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 schema already documents resource_uri with an example. The description adds meaning by explaining where the URI comes from (search hit or CAS table path) and connecting it to the resourceId lookup used by the profiling workflow. This goes beyond a bare schema description, though the relationship between resource_uri and resourceId could be slightly clearer.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve the catalog instance for a source-asset URI.' It immediately distinguishes the tool from catalog_search by explaining that catalog_search finds assets by free text and facets while this tool resolves the instance id that profiling/download tools require. The purpose is unmistakable even without reading the schema.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use it when you already hold a resource URI from a search hit or a CAS table path, and use it before calling catalog_download_table_profile. It also names the alternative, catalog_search, and explains the difference in lookup style. This is strong routing guidance for an agent.

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