lerg_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about querying tables by field values but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like performance or return format beyond what annotations provide.

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 and well-structured, starting with the core purpose, followed by concrete examples, and ending with filter format details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does not explain the return format or pagination behavior beyond parameter names. While the tool is simple and parameters are well-documented, the output is not described, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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%, and the description adds significant value by providing real-world examples of common queries (e.g., carrier by OCN, NPA-NXX info) and explaining the filter format with explicit syntax, which helps the agent understand how to construct queries effectively.

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 clearly defines the tool as a LERG table query tool with specific verb-resource combination ('Query any LERG table') and provides concrete examples of common queries for different tables, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like lerg_complex_query.

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 clear context on when to use (for common queries) and gives filter format examples, but does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives like lerg_complex_query for complex queries.

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