search_catalog

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

The annotations already convey that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds minimal behavioral insight beyond stating that it performs a search. It does not discuss pagination, return format, or any side effects, but given the annotations, the description is adequate but not enriching.

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 that is extremely concise and front-loaded. It contains no redundant information and efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, explicit annotations), the description is sufficiently complete. It could mention that it returns matching items or a default result format, but the schema covers the limit parameter. Overall, it provides a clear and adequate summary.

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 schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it merely repeats the purpose. According to the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'service catalog', making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by specifically mentioning 'service catalog', which is different from other search targets like CMDB CI or knowledge articles.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative search tools (e.g., ai_search, search_cmdb_ci). The usage context is implied only by the resource name, leaving the agent to infer its applicability without exclusion criteria.

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