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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds that this is a GET discovery endpoint and enumerates what the response contains (parameters, types, allowed operators, value options). It stops short of noting pagination, auth requirements, or whether results are cached, so it earns credit but not a perfect score.

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 short sentences plus an endpoint reference, all front-loaded: the capability first, the imperative usage rule second. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explicitly enumerates what the response returns, which is exactly what an agent needs before constructing a query. Combined with the readOnlyHint annotation and 100% parameter coverage, nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% with a single enum-constrained resource parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The phrase 'for one record type' reinforces the mapping but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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+resource: it lists the parameters, types, operators and value options that virtuous_query accepts, scoped to one record type. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling virtuous_query, which executes the query rather than describing its shape.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call this BEFORE building a query,' giving an unambiguous ordering rule relative to virtuous_query. The agent knows exactly when this tool is relevant and which sibling it precedes.

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