Get a catalog entry

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds the non-obvious resolution order: the workspace's own copy first, falling back to platform-mcp-hub's. That fallback is real behavioral value the annotations do not convey. It still omits what happens when no entry is found.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the fallback detail is packed into a short parenthetical. It is arguably too terse, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a simple two-param getter with safety already declared by annotations and no output schema, the key resolution behavior is covered. However, the completely undocumented parameters and the silence on not-found behavior leave meaningful gaps.

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 0% for both required parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never explains what 'category' or 'id' are or how they combine to identify an entry. No syntax, format, or namespace hints are given.

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 fragment names the resource (one catalog entry) and the exact return payload (full JSON), which separates it from catalog_search's multi-result listing and save_entry's write. The verb lives only in the title, not the description, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement and no reference to sibling tools such as catalog_search for discovery versus this tool for a known entry. The only implied usage is fetching by category+id, which an agent must infer.

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