get_from_project_where

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict annotations, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 single sentence, making it concise but lacking substance. It could be expanded to include more useful information without becoming verbose. It is not overly long, but it is too minimal for optimal clarity.

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 the tool has 4 parameters including nested objects, and no output schema, the description should clarify behavior like return format, pagination, or limitations. It does not address these aspects, leaving the agent with incomplete information for reliable invocation.

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. The description's phrase 'structured JSON conditions' adds minimal context about the 'conditions' parameter but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema's 'Field-value pairs (AND logic)'. The description does not compensate beyond what the schema offers.

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 'Flexible filtering with structured JSON conditions' gives a general sense of the tool's purpose but is vague. It indicates filtering and JSON conditions but does not explicitly state it retrieves data from a project table. The tool name suggests the domain, but the description lacks specificity.

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_from_project' or other query tools. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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