Catalog List Agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and non-open-world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds useful domain context (agents crawl a server/library to collect metadata) but discloses nothing beyond that about cost, permissions, or result volume, so it is only a modest addition over 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then a compact definition of the resource, then sibling routing. No filler; every sentence 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?

A read-only list tool with an output schema (so return values need no prose), full 100% parameter documentation, and named sibling alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%: limit, start, and filter_name each carry their own description including defaults and substring-match semantics. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema does all the work.

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?

States a specific verb (List) plus resource (SAS Data Governance discovery agents), then defines what those agents actually do (crawl a data source to discover assets and collect metadata). This clearly separates it from catalog_run_agent and catalog_get_agent_history without the agent needing to open 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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives: catalog_run_agent to start an agent, catalog_get_agent_history to inspect a run, which tells the agent when this tool is NOT the right one. It stops short of stating the explicit trigger for calling this one (e.g. 'call before running an agent to obtain its ID'), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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