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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description repeats "Read-only", but it adds context beyond the annotation by disclosing the underlying POST /api/v1/resource/{Object}/QUERY endpoint and the fact that despite POST it is a read. It does not discuss return shape or rate limits, but the annotation already covers the safety profile.

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?

Purpose and object examples are front-loaded, followed by the search format, operators, and the describe_resource pointer. Dense but each element is load-bearing; the trailing endpoint reference is slightly redundant but justified by the unusual POST-for-read pattern.

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 complex nested-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, search construction, operators, and the field-discovery path adequately. It omits any description of the returned result shape and how expanded joins surface, which is a minor gap for a query tool.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description adds real meaning: a concrete clause-map example ({"s1":{"field":"Employee","data":12,"type":"eq"}}), the operator set, and the guidance that field/join names come from deputy_describe_resource. This goes beyond the schema's enum list by showing how clauses are actually composed.

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 and resource ("Run a Resource API search on any business object") and enumerates concrete objects (leave types, pay rules, public holidays, etc.). It distinguishes itself from the describe sibling by naming deputy_describe_resource for field discovery, so an agent can tell query from describe without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear workflow context: use deputy_describe_resource to learn an object's fields and joins before querying, which is explicit 'when to use the other tool' guidance. It does not, however, state when to prefer this generic query over the purpose-built list_* siblings (e.g. deputy_list_employees), leaving that ambiguity.

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