list_catalog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals useful behavior: the tool reflects the current state of the repo, groups results, returns file URIs, and caches results for 15 minutes with a refresh option. This goes well beyond a simple list operation, though it does not discuss failure modes or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains why to call it first, and ends with the parameter behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the discovery workflow, the returned URI format, grouping semantics, and caching behavior. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to understand what it will get back.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It does: refresh=True bypasses the 15-minute cache and re-checks the repo. The default false value is provided by the schema, so the description meaningfully supplements the schema rather than repeating it.

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 lists parquet files that actually exist in the dataset, grouped into judgments, regulations, and legislation. It also distinguishes itself by framing it as the entry point for discovering names and URIs that other tools expect.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call this first' and explains the tool provides the exact court/state/body names and hf:// URIs needed by run_sql and sibling tools. It gives clear when-to-use context but does not enumerate when not to use it or compare against each sibling directly.

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