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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Reads only; refreshes nothing,' clearly communicating that this is a safe, non-mutating operation. It doesn't cover auth or rate limits, but for a simple read tool this is adequate and exceeds what a bare annotation would provide.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the tool's purpose with specificity, and the second sentence adds the behavioral guarantee. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return content (steps, load destination, connection), the read-only behavior, and the parameter meaning. It doesn't detail the output format or how to discover valid query names, but it is reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema provides a single string parameter with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description's 'by name' adds meaning by clarifying that the parameter is the query name, but it does not specify format, examples, or how valid names are obtained. It adds minimal but necessary meaning beyond the schema.

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 action (Explain), the resource (one Power Query query by name), and the content of the explanation (steps, load, connection). It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the verb/resource combination is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's primary function.

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 implies use when an explanation of a specific query is needed, but it does not state when to use this tool versus siblings like query_list, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no guidance on alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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