List the scientific figure catalog for semantic selection

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds value beyond them by disclosing what is NOT returned ('no images, previews or receipts') and that the listing is paginated with facets and per-Provider counts. This sets expectations for both capability and limits, though it doesn't discuss pagination mechanics in the prose.

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?

Three dense sentences with the payload description front-loaded, then the usage rule, then the read-only caveat — efficient and scannable. Minor jargon ('receipts') costs a little clarity 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 10-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers what the catalog returns, why to reach for it, and the correct follow-up tool. Continuation semantics via resultSetId/nextOffset and language/assetKind filtering are left to the schema, which largely handles them, so nothing critical is missing.

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 70% schema coverage and rich per-parameter descriptions (limit, detail, offset, templates, plotFamily, familyGroup), the schema already carries most semantics. The description only lightly reinforces this via 'default (or selected) Providers' and 'compact' vs full listing; it adds little that isn't in the field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Return a compact, paginated catalog of the default (or selected) Providers' — and enumerates what the catalog contains (counts, plotFamily/language facets, one line per template). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling keyword-search path by naming the situation where search fails, so an agent can separate this from figure_library_search without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('before concluding that a figure type is missing', 'when keyword search returns nothing') and a concrete next step ('display chosen candidateIds with figure_library_get_candidate_images'). It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative for browsing-by-name, but the context is clear.

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