list_queries

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by describing what the search parameter matches and that tag filters, but it does not disclose return format, ordering, pagination, or what happens with no filters. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description adds limited behavioral detail beyond the schema–appropriate but not rich.

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 two sentences: the first states the primary purpose ('Browse the saved-query library'), and the second explains parameters. It is front-loaded with the core intent, has zero filler, and every word adds value. This is an exemplary model of concise, structured tool documentation.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters and no required fields. The description explains both parameters and implies the action. It does not describe return structure or pagination, but for a read-only list operation, these are relatively minor gaps. Given the low complexity and existing annotations, the description is nearly complete, missing only explicit output format and pagination behavior.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully explain the parameters. It does: 'search' matches id, name, description, and SQL text; 'tag' filters by tag. This adds meaningful semantics that are not inferable from the parameter names alone. It could be more precise (e.g., exact vs substring matching), but it covers both parameters adequately, warranting a strong score.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Browse the saved-query library.' It also explains the two filters (search and tag) with specifics on what search matches. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_query or search_schema, though the verb 'browse' implies a listing operation. This is clear but not fully differentiated from siblings.

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 conveys when to use this tool by saying it browses the saved-query library and explains how search and tag work. It does not mention alternatives, such as using get_query to retrieve a single query, or search_schema for schema-level search. Usage context is implied but no explicit exclusions or comparisons are given, so it earns a mid-range score.

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