aws_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value beyond that by disclosing pagination behavior via next_cursor, the max_items cap, and the region defaulting behavior. It also clarifies the scope is one account and one region, which is useful operational context.

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 one clear purpose sentence followed by a compact Args list. Every line serves a purpose, no filler is present, and the most important facts are front-loaded before the parameter details.

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 tool with six parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: required argument provenance, defaults, pagination, and a pointer to describe-view for parameter details. The output schema exists, so lack of return-format documentation is not a gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: every parameter receives at least a one-line explanation. Cursor, region defaults, params delegation to describe-view, and profile provenance all add meaning beyond the bare schema field names and types.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a catalog view against one account and region.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by framing it as execution of a view, while referencing aws_catalog and aws_describe_view for inputs rather than confusing them with this tool.

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 clear context by pointing to where required inputs come from: view_id from the catalog tool, profile from list-accounts, and params from describe-view. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus aws_read_resource, but the intended usage is strongly implied and cross-references help an agent route correctly.

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