catalog_find_instance

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not contradict them. It adds value by detailing the returned information (analysisTimeStamp, informationPrivacy, nlpTerms, etc.), which goes beyond the safety annotations and clarifies the tool's side-effect-free nature.

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 well-structured and free of unnecessary fluff. It covers purpose, usage context, and output details in a clear, logical flow, using backticks for code identifiers. Every sentence contributes value, and the length is appropriate for the information conveyed.

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?

Since there is no output schema provided, the description compensates by explicitly listing the returned fields (id, analysisTimeStamp, informationPrivacy, nlpTerms, nlpTags, mostImportantFields). It also situates the tool within a workflow (before catalog_download_table_profile), making the overall context complete enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema already describes the resource_uri parameter, achieving 100% coverage. The description augments this by explaining the origin of the URI (from a search hit or CAS table path) and its role in the lookup, which adds practical context beyond the schema's generic description.

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's function: 'Resolve the catalog instance for a source-asset URI.' It differentiates from sibling tools like catalog_search by specifying that it operates on an existing resource URI, and it lists the specific output (id and profile attributes).

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: when you already have a resource URI (from a search hit or CAS table path) and need to obtain the instance id and profile attributes before calling catalog_download_table_profile. It also contrasts with catalog_search, which is for finding assets by free text/facets, providing clear usage boundaries.

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