teos_catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral context — that calling it is free and that listed items are priced per call in USDC over x402 — which is real information beyond the schema. However, it never states that the operation is read-only, that no auth is required, or what the response looks like, leaving notable gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the fragment "Free." is awkwardly placed and the closing sentence ("TEOS is a catalog of small paid utilities for agents, priced per call in USDC over x402") partially restates the pricing already given in the first sentence. Some words are spent on redundancy rather than new information.

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 no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does reasonably well: free discovery files plus paid tools with prices. For a zero-parameter listing tool this is close to complete, though it omits any hint of response format or size.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description correctly spends no effort on arguments.

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 uses a specific verb ("List") and resource ("everything TEOS offers") and enumerates the contents: free discovery files plus paid per-call tools with prices. This clearly separates it from the sibling utilities (check_domain, summarize_url, etc.), which are individual functions rather than a catalog. It stops short of a 5 only because it never states the catalog's role as a discovery step relative to its siblings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the discovery/listing entry point, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never mentions the sibling teos_how_to_buy, which is the obvious complementary tool for acting on the catalog. This is minimum-viable implied usage.

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