read_v2_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: v2 omits null fields (absence means null), the entity must be singular, and aggregations are done via the result parameter. This supplements the annotation-based safety profile with concrete query behavior.

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 dense but compact, with four sentences that each earn their place. The inline example compresses a lot of syntax guidance. It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly more scannable; still, it is efficient for the complexity.

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?

This is a complex tool with 8 parameters and no output schema. The description covers core query capabilities (where, select, result, filter), the null-field behavior, and entity singular constraint. It does not explain error handling or detailed return formats beyond the truncated flag mentioned in the limit schema description, but for a read-only query tool it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it 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 only 38%, so the description must compensate for the many undocumented parameters. It does so for the most complex ones: where, select, result, and filter each get syntax explanation and/or an example. It does not cover limit, orderBy, or includeDeleted, but limit and orderBy have schema descriptions, and includeDeleted is minor. Overall, it adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description opens with 'Targetprocess REST v2 query (read-only)', which names the specific API version and action, and immediately clarifies it is read-only. It distinguishes itself from the sibling read_query (presumably v1) by explicitly calling out 'v2' and noting the singular entity form, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 gives clear context: this is for v2 queries with a specific syntax, and provides examples. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., read_query for v1) or state when not to use this tool, so an agent must infer the boundary from the v2 labeling and syntax examples.

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