o2_search

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond that by disclosing SQL syntactic restrictions, required stream-name quoting, the default 15-minute lookback, and the 200-row cap. It does not describe error behavior or result shape, but the safety profile is well covered.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, syntax example, and key operational constraints. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 SQL query tool with complete schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: query type, stream quoting, time defaults, row limit, and syntax restrictions. No output schema exists, but the dynamic result shape cannot be meaningfully pre-declared.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value with a real SQL example quoting the stream name and by clarifying default time window and row limits that map to the start/minutes/size parameters.

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 one read-only SQL SELECT/WITH query against OpenObserve.' The concrete example and constraints make it unmistakably distinct from sibling tools like o2_list_streams and o2_stream_schema, which focus on metadata rather than query execution.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only SQL query purpose and the stated defaults, but the description never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tools are mentioned, so an agent must infer the selection context.

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