sumo_qa_load_catalogue_entry

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it is read-only and local-only, never raises errors (returns error envelope), and marks output with canonical flags. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradiction.

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 well-structured with bullet points and clear sections, but is slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy could be trimmed without loss of meaning.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is thorough: it covers input combinations, output behavior (canonical flags), error handling, and ties to other loaders. The agent has all needed information to invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains each parameter: 'catalogue' must be one of four values, 'name' matches slug or heading text, 'format' has detailed semantics including defaults and canonical marking. This adds essential context missing from 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 it loads a single catalogue entry or whole catalogue as JSON, and distinguishes itself as 'a lighter alternative to the full-text loaders' for four specific prose catalogues. It explicitly names the catalogues and contrasts with sibling zero-argument loaders.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use with 'name' for a single entry, omit for whole catalogue; choose 'full' format for safe citation, 'compact' for navigation only. It also notes that the existing zero-argument loaders remain unchanged, helping agents decide between alternatives.

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