xql_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently reveals the end-to-end polling behavior, the exit condition (max_wait_seconds returns pending status), and that it wraps two other calls. It would be stronger with details on error handling or the structure of the returned results, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a useful wrapper explanation and a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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, the description explains the return behavior (results or pending status) but not the exact structure. The schema covers all parameters, and the description adds the polling/timeout context. It could mention streaming as an alternative, but for an ad-hoc query tool, the information provided is sufficient to use it correctly.

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 the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds a full JSON example with 'query' and 'time_frame', which is helpful but largely redundant with the schema's own example for time_frame. There is no new parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 runs an XQL query end-to-end, starting the query, polling, and returning results. It explicitly names the wrapped operations (xql/start_xql_query + xql/get_query_results), distinguishing it from the sibling tools xql_start_xql_query and xql_get_query_results.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Prefer this for ad-hoc data investigation' and explains it saves manual polling. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for streaming results with xql_get_query_results_stream) or provide exclusion criteria beyond this preference.

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