run_mql

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature, validation, and glossing, but does not mention error handling, rate limits, or response format. The quoting rules add behavioral context, but gaps remain.

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 with purpose. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly shorter without losing clarity.

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 MQL queries, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, constraints, quoting rules, and a referencing sibling. Lacks examples or error behavior, but for a single-parameter tool, it is fairly complete.

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%, so description must compensate. It explains the MQL parameter fully, including that it must be a read-only query, quoting rules, and cross-reference to 'lookup_feature' for feature checks. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's bare type string.

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 'Validate and run a read-only MQL query; return the query and glossed results.' This provides a specific verb ('validate and run'), resource ('MQL query'), and output, distinguishing it from siblings like 'lookup_feature' and 'search_bhsa'.

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 specifies that only read-only queries (SELECT/GET) are accepted and provides quoting rules. It also mentions 'lookup_feature' as a way to check feature kinds, implying when to use an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct comparison with siblings.

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