read_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it is fully paged, has a default limit of 500 and max of 5000, and returns {count, truncated, items}, which helps an agent anticipate truncated results. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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?

Two sentences are efficient and front-load the core purpose before pagination and return shape. The unexplained 'layer 1' costs some clarity, and the default/max limit repeats the schema, but every sentence otherwise earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter generic query tool, the description combined with a 100%-covered schema covers most call mechanics. It is incomplete as a routing aid because it does not clarify the relationship to read_collection or read_v2_query, does not explain 'layer 1', and has no output schema to detail the return values further.

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 100%, so the description does not need to redefine every parameter. It adds meaningful guidance by telling agents to 'use include to keep results small' and by emphasizing default/max limits and the truncated flag, which helps with selecting parameter values.

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 ('Query a collection of any resource') and names key capabilities (where/include/orderBy, paging), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It stops short of 5 because the cryptic 'layer 1' and lack of explicit differentiation from siblings like read_collection or read_v2_query leave room for confusion.

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 establishes a clear context—generic collection queries with where/include/orderBy—and offers a practical tip to use include to keep results small. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over read_collection, read_v2_query, or read_search, and 'layer 1' is not explained as an alternative or exclusion.

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