query_observations

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool queries observations and returns a dict, lacking details about auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or safety. The read-only nature is implied by 'query' but not stated explicitly.

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 a well-structured docstring with Args and Returns sections, each parameter on its own line with a short explanation. It is concise and free of fluff, though the parameter list is inherently lengthy due to 10 parameters.

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 description covers all parameters and mentions the return type, which is adequate given the output schema exists. However, it lacks usage context relative to sibling tools, fails to explain what the 'query info' in the return value contains, and provides no behavioral details. The tool is complex (10 optional params), and the description could be more helpful by comparing with get_observations.

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 input schema has no descriptions for its 10 parameters (coverage 0%), but the description compensates by listing each parameter with a brief explanation. For example, it clarifies that 'select' refers to OData `$select` and 'filter' to OData `$filter`, adding meaning beyond the bare names and types in the schema.

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 states the tool queries observations with advanced OData options, naming a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool get_observations, relying on the word 'advanced' to imply a difference rather than directly comparing.

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 like get_observations. The description lists OData options but does not explain the intended use case, such as when advanced querying is needed, nor does it mention any exclusions or fallback tools.

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