query_raw

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is read-only ('solo lettura'), which is helpful, but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, what happens with malformed queries, or the format/scope of results. For a raw query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded in a single sentence. It efficiently conveys the core action and constraint ('solo lettura') without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from limitations or adding a brief example to enhance clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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 complexity of executing raw queries on a system like VTENext, the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to address key aspects: authentication needs, query language specifics, result format, error conditions, or performance implications. Sibling tools suggest this is part of a CRM/opportunity management system, but the description doesn't contextualize VTQL or its relation to other tools, leaving significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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?

The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema. It mentions 'query VTQL grezza' (raw VTQL query), which aligns with the schema's parameter description. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the single 'query' parameter well. The description doesn't add syntax examples, VTQL dialect details, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Esegue una query VTQL grezza su VTENext (solo lettura)' which translates to 'Executes a raw VTQL query on VTENext (read-only)'. It specifies the verb ('executes'), resource ('VTQL query'), and target system ('VTENext'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_opportunita' or 'list_opportunita' which might also query data.

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?

The description provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions '(solo lettura)' indicating read-only use, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_opportunita' or 'list_opportunita', nor does it specify prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate contexts for raw VTQL queries versus structured search tools.

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