nrql_query

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It states that it 'return results', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly mention side effects (or lack thereof), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. While the basic read-only intent is clear, more transparency would be expected for a tool with no annotation support.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence enumerates data types, which adds context but is somewhat redundant. It is appropriately sized without unnecessary fluff.

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 single-parameter query tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It covers the action, target data, and overall purpose. It lacks details on error handling or limits, but these are not critical for basic usage, and the output schema presumably covers return structure.

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 schema already provides a full description of the 'query' parameter (coverage 100%), including an example. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Run') and a clear resource ('NRQL query against your New Relic account'), and clarifies the scope ('return results'). It is distinct from most siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nrql_batch_query, leaving some ambiguity about single vs. batch queries.

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 provides a clear context for use ('query any telemetry data: transactions, errors, spans, etc.'), which implies it is the general-purpose querying tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for batch queries), so no explicit exclusions or routing to siblings are provided.

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