service_query_suggestion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read/safe operation ('Discover', 'recommendations') but never states it is non-destructive, mentions no side effects, and doesn't clarify behaviors implied by the operationType enum — notably 'mutate', 'suspend_logging', and 'resume_logging' — leaving the agent to guess what invoking this tool might affect.

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 efficient sentence with zero filler that front-loads the core purpose. It loses a point only for being too terse to carry the load of 6 undocumented parameters — concise but under-specified.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, a discovery/recommendation tool is moderately complex. The description fails to explain the operationType enum values, what the output looks like, or how intent drives recommendations — an agent would struggle to call this correctly.

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 0%, so every one of the 6 parameters must be explained in the description. The text only hints at 'workflow intent' (mapping to intent) and 'recommendations', but says nothing about path, method, operationType enum semantics, includeExamples, or includeToolSchemas. It barely compensates for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Discover MCP tool schemas and get query/tool recommendations for a workflow intent.' It clearly distinguishes from the Fastly-specific siblings, none of which do schema discovery or recommendation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't name a sibling to prefer for other cases, nor state conditions like 'when you need a concrete tool schema' or 'when your workflow intent is vague.' Among Fastly-focused siblings this is obviously different, but the description leaves the routing to inference.

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