describe_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only a hint at returned content ('name, type, whether required, allowed values'), and that hint is redundant with the output schema. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes little behavioral context beyond them.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity — the colon list reads as either input or output fields. Front-loading a verb and the target object would have cost only a few words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The remaining essentials — what identifier to supply and what the tool is for relative to its siblings — are absent or ambiguous, leaving an agent to guess at invocation.

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 0% and the single 'name' parameter has no type guidance, format, or example anywhere. The description mentions 'name' only inside a list of possible returned attributes, which muddies rather than clarifies whether name is the identifying input (e.g. query name, ID, or path). With one undocumented required parameter, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 is a noun fragment ('Parameters of one catalog query: name, type, whether required, allowed values') with no verb, so it never says whether the tool returns those fields or accepts them. It does distinguish itself from list_queries and run_query by scoping to 'one' query without executing it, but the agent must infer that the tool is a metadata lookup. Vague purpose rather than a specific verb+resource.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus list_queries or run_query, and no prerequisites such as requiring the query to already exist. The only signal is the word 'one', which weakly implies a single-query lookup rather than enumeration or execution.

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