search_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 discloses what it returns ('matching entries with title, kind, owner, and catalog location path'), which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe edge cases like no-match behavior, pagination, or rate limits. An output schema exists but the description could still add more detail on result ordering or exactness.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource. Every sentence earns its place: the first states purpose, the second states return shape. Concise and efficient, though it could afford one more sentence for usage guidance.

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 two-parameter search tool with a simple output schema, this is reasonably complete. The description covers what it searches, where, and what it returns. Gaps: no clarification on how 'limit' interacts with results, no differentiation from search_collections sibling, and no statement about empty-result behavior. These are minor for a search tool but not entirely insignificant.

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%, so the schema itself provides no documentation for 'term' or 'limit'. The description implies 'term' is a search query but doesn't state semantics like case-sensitivity, fuzzy matching, or whether it's a full-text search. However, with only 2 simple parameters and readable names ('term', 'limit'), the baseline burden is modest and the meaning is reasonably inferable.

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 ('Search') plus resource ('the TechZone catalog') and name-checks the specific URL. It lists the searchable categories (environments, collections, products). It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling search_collections tool, so it doesn't quite reach a 5.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Given the sibling tools include search_collections, get_catalog_entry, and get_collection, an agent could confuse which search path to take. No exclusions or context on when to prefer this over search_collections.

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