call_user_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Call' implies execution, but it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it may mutate data (a saved query could invoke actions?), what HTTP method behavior is, or what happens with parameters. The method and params fields hint at HTTP mechanics, but the description itself does not reveal side effects or response shape.

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 one short sentence with no waste. It front-loads the core action and resource. It could add a brief consequence or usage note without hurting conciseness, but as-is it is appropriately compact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are presumably documented elsewhere. Still, for a tool that executes a saved query with configurable HTTP method and params, an agent would benefit from knowing typical use cases, whether this is safe to call, and how query execution differs from evidence_get. The description is minimally complete but leaves behavioral ambiguity.

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 100%, so each parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. With full coverage the baseline is 3; the description does not elevate it by explaining query_id semantics or how params maps to AbraFlexi's N-arity syntax beyond what the parameter description already says.

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 says 'Call a saved user-defined query (uzivatelsky dotaz).' That is a specific verb ('call') with a clear resource ('a saved user-defined query'), and it distinguishes this from generic evidence operations. It could be stronger by clarifying what 'call' returns, but the verb+resource is enough to tell the agent this executes a saved query rather than reading a record.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, the description implies it is for executing a saved user-defined query, which is contextually distinct from siblings like evidence_get or abraflexi_client_call. It does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so an agent must infer usage from the resource type.

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