query_api

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the access-tier requirement and the note that bodies are rare for read APIs, but says nothing about rate limits, error behavior, or what a response looks like. That is a modest value-add above annotations, consistent with a 3.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with scope and examples, then permission, then the write alternative. No redundant or filler content.

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 generic dispatcher with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers scope, examples, access tier, and the write alternative. It stops short of error semantics and response expectations, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 all four parameters (api, body, path, query) are already documented in the schema, including the path-parameter example. The description adds only the hint that body is rare for read APIs; it does not clarify api-name/alias resolution or nested object formats beyond the 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?

States a specific verb ('Call') and resource ('read-only QQ API, GET endpoints'), with concrete endpoint examples that make the operation tangible. It distinguishes read from write by routing to invoke_api, though it does not differentiate execution from discovery siblings like list_apis or get_api.

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?

Explicitly gives a prerequisite ('Read mode or higher') and names the alternative for the opposite case ('For writes use invoke_api'). It does not say when to use this versus list_apis/get_api/search_apis for API discovery, leaving one routing gap.

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