list_desk_services_catalogs

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: listing parent containers, fuzzy matching, precedence when both desk_id and desk_name are provided, and client-side filtering. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but 'listar' implies it. No contradictions.

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 concise with 4 sentences, each adding value. It starts with the main purpose, then covers desk identification, precedence, and filtering. No extraneous words.

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 has 5 parameters, no required ones, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: behavioral details, fuzzy matching, precedence, and client-side filtering. It could mention the return format (list of catalog objects) but is not necessary per rules.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond schema by explaining fuzzy matching for desk_name and catalog_name, the precedence rule, and the distinction between catalog and catalog item. This enriches the parameter semantics.

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 lists catalogs (parent containers) associated with a desk, and distinguishes it from catalog items by directing users to search_catalog_item. The verb 'listar' and resource 'catalogos de servicos vinculados a uma mesa' are specific, differentiating it from 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool (listing catalogs) and when to use an alternative (search_catalog_item for items). It provides clear guidance on desk identification via desk_id or desk_name with precedence rules, and mentions fuzzy matching for desk_name and catalog_name.

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