catalog_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the query grammar in detail, the cross-environment search behavior, and the structure of results (resource_uri, attributes map with common fields). While it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects, the disclosed behavior is comprehensive for a read-only search tool.

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 appropriately sized for a complex search tool with a non-trivial query grammar. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by context, result structure, and query syntax. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tightened without losing clarity.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to fully explain return values, but it usefully describes key result fields and common attributes. The query grammar is fully explained with examples. The description covers the tool's complexity well, though it omits error handling or malformed query behavior.

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 each parameter has a description. The description adds significant value by explaining the query grammar with examples (wildcards, facets, ranges, combinations) and clarifying the meaning of the result fields (resource_uri, attributes). This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent use the tool correctly.

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 states the verb 'Search', the resource 'SAS Information Catalog', and the scope 'assets (tables, columns, reports, ...)'. It differentiates from siblings by explaining that the search doesn't require knowing the server/library first, and mentions that results include resource_uris for use with tools like get_report, distinguishing it from those action 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?

The description explains when to use: to find assets without needing prior knowledge of server/library. It also suggests an alternative: 'Use catalog_search_helper to discover valid facet names and values.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide exclusions.

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