indicator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'query,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose return format, whether any side effects exist, authentication requirements, or any other behavioral traits. The example only shows the input shape, not the output or side effects.

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 brief and to the point, with a concise prefix and a useful example. It doesn't contain filler, but the 'Indicators ·' prefix is slightly redundant with the tool name. Overall, it is appropriately sized for the content it provides.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values, but it does not. It only covers the input format, leaving the agent guessing about what the query returns. For a simple query tool, this is a significant gap, as the agent cannot anticipate the response structure or any error conditions.

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 describes 'by' as 'GraphQL: IOCBy!' and 'customer_slug' as an override header, which is minimal. The description enriches this by providing a concrete example of the 'by' object structure with id, input, name, and type, helping the agent understand the expected format beyond the schema. This adds meaningful value.

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 'query indicator,' which clearly identifies the action (query) and resource (indicator). The example variables further clarify that it retrieves a single indicator by ID and input criteria, distinguishing it from the plural 'indicators' sibling. However, it does not explicitly say 'get indicator by ID' or describe the full scope of the 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling 'indicators' likely lists all indicators, but the description does not explicitly state 'use this to fetch a single indicator' or mention any exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the singular naming and example.

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