Get catalog info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds content-level context (that version info includes a source git SHA and search-index build time, and that license/child-safety notes are included), which is genuinely useful and not in the annotations. It stops short of describing return structure or freshness guarantees.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler — every listed element corresponds to real returned content. It is slightly weakened by being a bare fragment with no leading verb, which makes the first read feel like a field dump rather than a statement of what the tool does.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does list the four buckets of returned data. But it gives no sense of structure, key names, or scale (e.g. how counts are grouped), which for a zero-parameter inspect-the-catalog tool is only a partial account.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no inputs whose semantics could be ambiguous, and the schema is fully documented. No deduction is warranted.

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 enumerates the categories of information the tool surfaces (item-type counts, content version, level mapping, license and child-safety notes), which is more specific than the title alone. However, it is a verbless noun fragment — it never states that the tool *returns* catalog-wide metadata, so the action is only inferred. It does at least distinguish itself from item-level siblings like get_item and list_courses.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus list_courses, list_subjects, list_age_bands, or the other catalog-adjacent siblings. No prerequisites, no context, no exclusions are given. The agent must guess that this is the whole-catalog overview rather than a filtered listing.

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