Natural Query Builder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states what the tool does ('convert') but doesn't describe how it behaves: no details about error handling, performance characteristics, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like (especially problematic since there's no output schema). This is inadequate for a tool with complex parameters.

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 perfectly concise at just 5 words, front-loading the core functionality without any wasted words. Every element earns its place, making it immediately scannable and understandable despite its 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 (4 parameters including a nested object, 25% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or provide enough context about parameters and behavior. This leaves too many unknowns for effective tool invocation.

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 only 25% (only 'userContext' has a description), and the description doesn't compensate by explaining any parameters. It doesn't clarify what 'naturalQuery', 'entityType', or 'serviceId' mean, nor does it provide examples or context for the 'userContext' object. For a tool with 4 parameters including a nested object, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 function: converting natural language to OData queries. It uses specific verbs ('convert') and identifies the resource ('OData queries'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sap-smart-query' or 'smart-data-analysis' which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'sap-smart-query' or 'smart-data-analysis' that might handle similar query-related tasks. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate contexts.

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