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

With no annotations present, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it reveals the 5000-row cap, tenant scoping, and mandatory filter requirements. It does not describe output structure or pagination beyond the cap, so a small transparency gap remains.

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 purpose is front-loaded, critical requirements are clearly formatted, and the example closes the description. Every line adds functional value with no filler.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is nearly complete for calling the tool correctly: purpose, cap, tenant, required params, and an example are all present. The main missing piece is what the returned raw rows actually look like, which is a notable gap for a raw-data 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 0%, and the description fully compensates: it marks the required date pair, the exact one-of scope filter condition, warns against wrong date param names, and provides a concrete invocation example. All four parameters are meaningfully explained.

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 identifies the resource as 'raw insight rows' capped at 5000 and explicitly contrasts it with query_overview as the main read path. An agent can distinguish this debug/drilldown tool from its siblings without opening schemas.

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 states the intended use ('debugging or detail drilldown'), points to the preferred alternative ('query_overview is the main read path'), and gives required parameter combinations. This is explicit when-to-use guidance with a clear alternative.

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