va_get_query_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It's a read/fetch operation, but the description fails to disclose return format, pagination behavior, data volume expectations, or any rate limits. It doesn't describe what the response structure looks like or whether results are aggregated or per-query rows.

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?

A single sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. No wasted words, and the parenthetical explanation adds value. It doesn't overload with unnecessary detail for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 simple 2-param, high-schema-coverage tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, given the sibling tools (va_get_transcripts, va_get_engagements) that may return overlapping data, the description could clarify what 'query-level detail' returns and why you'd choose this over alternatives. The lack of output format description is a minor gap since there's no output 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both 'from' and 'to' documented as date strings (YYYY-MM-DD) in the schema. The description adds context that these define the date range for query details, but it's minimal. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate since the description doesn't notably extend schema semantics.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get Zoom Virtual Agent query-level detail'. The description specifies what the data contains ('what users asked, whether it was answered') and the date-range scoping. It distinguishes somewhat from siblings like va_get_transcripts and va_get_engagements by naming 'query-level detail', though it doesn't explicitly reference alternatives.

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 implies it's for query-level analytics (date range, what was asked, answered status), but there's no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. With siblings like va_get_engagements and va_get_transcripts that could overlap, the description doesn't clarify which is best for which scenario.

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