Raw Query Url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses that the tool is read-only, executes a single SELECT, aliases the result as `series`, applies no curation, performs no unit conversion, and only reaches official Malaysian government open-data hosts. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs to avoid misusing an escape-hatch tool.

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 long but dense and front-loaded with the core escape-hatch concept. Every sentence earns its place: scoping, fallback workflow, sandboxing constraints, curation caveats, and host restrictions. It is appropriately sized for a nuanced tool that needs to prevent misuse.

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 zero annotations, minimal schema, and a complex fallback use case, the description is remarkably complete. It covers when to use the tool, how to find the URL, what SQL restrictions apply, what curation is absent, and what hosts are allowed. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's responsibility.

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 0%, so the description must supply parameter meaning. It does for the two required parameters: url is a Parquet URL on official storage hosts, and sql is a single read-only SELECT aliased as `series`. row_limit is not described, though its default of 1000 makes its purpose fairly obvious. Minor gap, but the critical parameters are well covered.

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 defines a specific verb-resource pair: directly query a Parquet URL that falls outside the curated registry. It clearly distinguishes itself from raw_query (which requires an existing series_id) and find_series (which only searches ~20 curated series), so an agent can identify exactly when raw_query_url is the right tool.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use this only when find_series returns nothing and the dataset has no registry entry. It also tells the agent what to do first (check DOSM's catalogue or web search for a storage.dosm.gov.my / storage.data.gov.my Parquet URL) and what not to do (treat it as a general-purpose fetcher). Exclusions are concrete and actionable.

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