Query the catalog

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the exact return shape and by giving a concrete filter example, which reveals how records are matched and combined without hiding edge cases.

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?

Three dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The return contract, prerequisite sibling tool, and a working example are packed into a compact definition that earns its length.

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 read-only annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, return values, a filter example, and a prerequisite. It does not spell out offset/limit pagination behavior beyond 'page through', but the schema defaults and constraints cover the mechanical details.

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 only 50%, so the description carries some burden for parameters like limit, offset, and sort_dir. The filter example does add semantic value for filter and sort_by, but it does not compensate for the undocumented pagination and sorting-direction parameters, which remain dependent on schema names and defaults.

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 opens with a specific verb phrase — 'Filter, sort, and page through catalog records' — that names the resource and the operations precisely. The stated return shape also disambiguates it from the sibling tools like catalog_stats or catalog_get.

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 gives explicit guidance to 'Use catalog_schema first if you are unsure which fields exist', which tells the agent when to consult a sibling first. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools like catalog_top or catalog_count_by, but the query/filter context is clear enough for a capable agent.

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