run_tf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the template syntax and that results are glossed, and mentions the BHSA release pinning. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects, though the query nature is implied.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and uses four sentences efficiently. While it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points), it avoids filler and communicates key information without verbosity.

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?

The description lacks details about the return format ('glossed results' is vague), error handling, or prerequisites. Given no output schema, the agent is left guessing about the structure of results. The tool is complex, and the description does not fully compensate for the missing schema.

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 single parameter 'template' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It provides detailed format: one object per line, indentation for containment, constraints as unquoted feature=value pairs, and that the last line is the target. This is comprehensive and actionable beyond the bare schema.

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 verb ('validate and run'), resource ('Text-Fabric search template'), and output ('return glossed results'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the template syntax and pinning to BHSA 2021, differentiating it from run_mql, lookup_feature, etc.

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 offers some usage hints (e.g., calling lookup_feature to check values) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like run_mql or search_bhsa. Context is implied rather than explicit.

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