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 meaningful constraints beyond that: only SELECT is accepted, one module only, no joins, no grouping brackets, and a 100-record cap per call. These are useful behavioral limits that help an agent form valid queries.

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 two compact sentences with the query template front-loaded and constraints packed efficiently into the second. Every clause earns its place by defining syntax, scope, or limits.

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 single-parameter, read-only query tool with full schema coverage and an annotation covering safety, the description supplies the remaining essentials: accepted syntax, scope restrictions, and record limits. Nothing critical to forming a valid call is missing, and return format need not be explained without an output 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 coverage is 100% and the schema includes a concrete example query, so the baseline is already strong. The description adds value by documenting the accepted grammar (SELECT <fields|*|count(*)> FROM <Module> [WHERE ...] [ORDER BY ...] [LIMIT offset,count]) and the structural restrictions, which go beyond the schema's example.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run your own read-only query' with a SELECT template against a module. This clearly distinguishes it from fixed-purpose siblings like vtiger_list_records or vtiger_count_records, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'your own' query and the syntax template, which suggests this tool is for custom SELECTs rather than predefined listings. However, there is no explicit routing guidance such as 'use vtiger_count_records for simple counts' or 'use vtiger_list_records for unfiltered lists', leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferable.

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