catalog_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety profile is clear. Description adds value by explaining that it returns resource_uri for acting on live assets, that attributes map includes typical metadata fields, and that query uses a specific grammar with wildcards and facets. It doesn't mention pagination behavior beyond limit/start params, but those are in schema, so fine.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose in first line, then details on hits, then query grammar. No fluff; every sentence adds useful information. Grammar examples are compact and helpful.

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 complexity (search grammar, facets, connections to other tools), the description is thorough. It covers the search syntax, uses examples, mentions the helper tool, and explains the return structure (resource_uri and attributes). Output schema exists so return values don't need expansion.

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%, all 4 params have descriptions. Description adds significant meaning by explaining the query grammar in detail (wildcards, facets, ranges, combinations), and mentions that `limit` should be used to control hits. It also notes `*` matches all names, which isn't in schema. Though params are fully described in schema, the description enriches understanding of the `query` param especially.

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?

Description clearly states it searches the SAS Information Catalog for assets, enumerates asset types, and distinguishes its scope from tools like get_report or get_castable_data by explaining it finds assets without knowing server/library. It distinguishes from sibling tools like catalog_find_instance and catalog_search_helper, and explicitly mentions the resource_uri that connects to other 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use when you don't know the server/library first. It also references a sibling tool `catalog_search_helper` to discover valid facets, giving an alternative for discovering query terms. Clear exclusions implied since other tools handle specific asset operations.

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