catalog.describe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('Get detailed information'), which implies it is likely non-destructive, but does not address other traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the member does not exist. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key details without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to understand quickly. However, it could be slightly more concise by avoiding minor redundancy (e.g., 'detailed information' might imply 'definition, type, and related members').

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 complexity of retrieving detailed member information, the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain critical aspects such as the format of returned information, potential errors, or any limitations. The description alone does not provide enough context for an agent to fully understand how to use the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'member' documented as 'Full member name (e.g., "Orders.count")'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format constraints or examples beyond the schema. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('a specific member'), and specifies what information is retrieved ('definition, type, and related members'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like catalog.search, which might also retrieve member information but with different scope or filtering.

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 implies usage when detailed information about a specific member is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like catalog.search or query.semantic. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the context somewhat open-ended.

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