Point Topic — UK Broadband Market Reference

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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description reinforces this while adding significant behavioral context: CSV return format, ~50k token truncation with a leading notice, LIMIT recommendation, and the behavior for denied queries. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense paragraph front-loads the core purpose and read-only guarantee, then flows logically through constraints, workflow, and output behavior. No filler; every sentence contributes actionable information.

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?

Covers scope, exclusions, allowed SQL, table-discovery workflow, return format, truncation behavior, and safety posture. With an output schema present and no sibling tools, nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by showing valid SQL forms (SHOW TABLES FROM ontology, DESCRIBE TABLE) and giving result-handling guidance. The optional ctx parameter is not explained, but it is nullable/defaulted and not required, making this a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 ('Query'), a concrete resource ('Point Topic's public broadband ontology' / ClickHouse), and a read-only scope. It clearly separates this tool from the generic execute_query name and tells the agent exactly what data is in scope.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance: discover tables with SHOW TABLES FROM ontology, inspect columns with DESCRIBE TABLE, and restrict queries to SELECT/WITH/SHOW/DESCRIBE/EXPLAIN. It also states when not to use the tool — licensed measurement data is excluded and denied queries return contact details.

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