query_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It does this well by detailing the supported filter types, match modes, and return format ('JSON array of matching properties'). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe edge cases (e.g., behavior when no filters are supplied) or performance implications, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured with clear sections: a one-sentence summary, the usage distinction, filter categories, control parameters, and return format. Every sentence carries useful information and the front-loaded opening makes it easy to understand the tool's core purpose quickly. It is appropriately sized for a tool with seven 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 is comprehensive for a query tool: it explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, all parameter semantics, and the return shape. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but the description still provides a helpful summary. A minor gap: it does not explicitly state what happens when no filters are provided (likely returns a full list), which would strengthen completeness. Overall, it is complete enough but not exhaustive.

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 compensates fully by explaining each parameter semantically. It gives examples for label (e.g., 'jurisdiction', 'applies'), clarifies match_mode options ('substring', 'exact', 'regex', 'fuzzy'), and defines has_inverse with boolean semantics. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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's function: 'Query FOLIO object properties with composable text and structural filters.' It also differentiates from the sibling tool get_properties by explicitly noting it 'Replaces get_properties() when you need filtered results instead of the full list,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Replaces get_properties() when you need filtered results instead of the full list.' This names an alternative and states the condition for using this tool over that alternative, which exceeds the minimum requirement for usage guidance.

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