catalog_search_helper

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

Annotations already assert readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description only states that it lists facets or values, which is read-only by definition. It adds no further behavioral context (e.g., limits, paging) beyond what annotations suffice. It doesn't contradict annotations, but also doesn't provide extra value. Given annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise (about 4 sentences), with a clear opening sentence that sums up the purpose. It proceeds to explain the two usage modes and ends with the practical outcome. No superfluous text, every line has value. Excellent structure.

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 tool with only three parameters, all documented in schema, and an output schema provided, the description is fairly complete. It explains the primary two modes (list facets vs list values) and ties to catalog_search queries. It doesn't cover the 'limit' and 'query' details in the description, but they are fully described in the schema. The tool's simplicity and having output schema we have, the description is sufficient. Minor deduction for not mentioning how query interacts with values/facets more specifically, but overall 4.

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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so high baseline. The description adds context for the facet parameter (calling with no facet vs with a facet name) and clarifies that values are 'suggested/valid' values, which enriches the schema's dry description. It also explains the query parameter as an optional filter, matching the schema. This adds meaning beyond the schema, especially for facet's dual behavior, so 4 is justified.

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 tool's purpose: 'list facets, or values for one facet' and explicitly ties it to catalog_search. It distinguishes from sibling tools like catalog_find_instance by referencing catalog_search queries and saying

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 usage instructions: calling with no facet lists facets; calling with a facet name gets values. It also tells the user to use the results to build precise catalog_search queries, indicating when it's appropriate (before a search). Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough. Slight deduction for not naming the alternative (like using catalog_search directly), but the intent is clear.

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