run_query

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It only says 'Execute' with no disclosure of side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. The api_key parameter implies auth needs but is not mentioned in the description.

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: first sentence states core purpose, second provides context and sibling reference. No redundant or filler content. Front-loaded with action verb 'Execute'.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and 3 parameters (one nested). Description fails to explain return format, error behavior, pagination details, or authentication needs. Essential context for a query execution tool is missing.

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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning to parameters beyond listing template categories. The api_key parameter lacks schema description, and the tool description does not address it. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Execute a pre-approved named query template with parameters' and lists example template categories (HCC grouping, readmission benchmarks, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like get_data (raw data) and get_sample_queries (listing templates).

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?

Description instructs 'Use get_sample_queries to see available templates,' providing a clear sibling reference. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool (e.g., for ad-hoc queries) or mention alternative tools.

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