get_catalog

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

The description says 'Fetch', which strongly implies a read-only retrieval operation, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false. That is a direct contradiction of the safety profile an agent would infer from the text. The source-frame caveat is useful output semantics, but it does not resolve the read-only mismatch.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the core action before the mass-frame caveat. It is efficient, though the all-caps 'AFTER' and terse phrasing make it slightly cryptic rather than fully polished.

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 one-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description should at least explain what run_id refers to and what kind of catalog data is returned. It gives a useful domain caveat about source-frame masses but leaves the required parameter and return contents substantially unexplained.

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 only parameter, run_id, has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The description adds no information about what run_id identifies, where to obtain it, or what format it expects, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 gives a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('published inference') and adds a timing condition ('AFTER analysis'). However, it does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_results, and the relationship between 'catalog' and 'published inference' is left implicit.

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 phrase 'AFTER analysis' supplies an implied usage condition, telling the agent this is a post-analysis retrieval step. But there are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites naming sibling tools like get_results or verify_artifacts.

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