query_warehouse

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 implies a read-only operation by using 'retrieve', but does not explicitly state that it is safe, idempotent, or any potential side effects. The return structure is described, which adds some context.

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 concise and well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the most important info (purpose) is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with one required parameter and an explicit return structure described, the description is fairly complete. However, it lacks details on error handling, pagination limits, or authorization requirements, which would be beneficial for a complete understanding.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides only type string with no description. The description compensates fully by naming the parameter, providing an example value ('MER-001'), and explaining its purpose (merchant identifier).

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 it retrieves dispute history for a merchant from a data warehouse, with specific verb 'retrieve' and resource 'dispute history'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'search_visa_rules' which addresses a different domain.

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?

The description explains the parameter merchant_id with an example but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor provide any exclusion criteria. Sibling tool name implies different use case, but no direct guidance is given.

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