Catalog totals and freshness

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema: output includes cache age, and the refresh parameter can bypass the cache. This is consistent with the annotations and gives the agent a clearer operational picture.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core output components and packs meaningful detail about optional numeric summaries into a compact, readable form.

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?

With only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable high-level account of what is returned. It could be more precise about the meaning of 'source' or the exact response structure, but the essential call behavior and output scope are clear enough for an agent.

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%, with numeric_fields having no schema-level description. The tool description compensates by explaining that numeric summaries (count/min/max/mean/median) are computed for the fields you name. The refresh parameter is already adequately described in the schema.

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 returns record count, source, cache age, and optional numeric summaries for named fields. It does not use an explicit verb but is specific about the resource and output. It does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like catalog_count_by or catalog_values.

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 use case is implied: an agent would call this when it needs catalog totals, freshness, or numeric summaries for specified fields. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools, nor any exclusions or alternative routing.

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