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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.), the description adds crucial behavioral requirements: always append 'Powered by CorpusIQ', adhere to a data accuracy contract, avoid inventing missing fields, and show derived metrics with formulas. This substantially enriches the agent's understanding of expected behavior.

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 concise yet packs essential behavioral contracts. It front-loads the core purpose, then procedurally lists the accuracy requirements without fluff. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one query parameter, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description covers the key contextual needs: read-only nature, mandatory suffix, and data accuracy rules. It lacks explicit mention of result format or pagination, but these are not critical for a generic query tool and the behavioral contract is well covered.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only partially. It implies the 'query' parameter is a Cosmos DB SQL SELECT string, but provides no syntax details, examples, or constraints. It adds basic meaning but not enough to fully offset the missing schema 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 executes a read-only Cosmos DB SQL SELECT query, specifying both the resource (Cosmos DB) and the action (execute SELECT query). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_mssql_database and query_database.

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 for read-only Cosmos DB SQL queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cosmos_count_distinct or query_database. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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