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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return shape '{ list, total }' (no output schema exists) and the Contact/Gift-only behavior of full_details. However, it says nothing about pagination interplay, rate limits, or auth scope, so it is solid but not rich.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action and its scoping lead, and secondary detail (return shape, full_details, endpoint) follows. The trailing 'Virtuous: POST /api/<Resource>/Query' is low-value for an agent but harmless and compact.

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 an 8-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return envelope, the distinguished full_details path, and the pointer to QueryOptions for condition vocabulary. Remaining gaps (pagination semantics, archived defaults) are minor and largely handled by the schema.

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%, so per the rubric the baseline is 3 even though the schema documents skip/take/sort_by/descending/full_details/include_archived fully. The description adds one genuinely useful cross-reference (parameter/operator values come from virtuous_get_query_options) but otherwise restates what the schema already conveys.

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?

'Run a Virtuous query-builder query against one record type' gives a specific verb plus resource and enumerates the record types it operates on. It distinguishes itself from the simpler locate-style siblings (virtuous_search, virtuous_find_contact) by tying conditions to the query-builder model. An agent can identify this as the flexible/ad-hoc filter tool without opening the 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?

It routes the agent to virtuous_get_query_options for valid parameter/operator names and notes that omitting groups returns all records, which is clear contextual guidance. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or a named competing sibling (e.g. 'for a single known contact use virtuous_get_contact'), so it is strong but not a full routing rule set.

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