superset_chart_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by disclosing the exact JSON structure, a critical gotcha about time_range being at the query level, and allowed time_range values. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'retrieve data' implies it. The detailed format and constraint notes add valuable 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 moderately long due to the necessary JSON example, but it is well-structured: purpose, alternative, then args. Every element earns its place—the format and allowed values are essential. It is not bloated, just slightly verbose given the complexity.

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 complex JSON parameter and an output schema present, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the query building blocks, the datasource specification, result format, and the critical time_range placement. The existence of an output schema means return values need no further detail.

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 single parameter query_context has zero schema description coverage, so the description fully compensates by providing a complete JSON template with datasource, queries, columns, metrics, filters, orderby, row_limit, time_range, result_format, and result_type. It also lists allowed time_range values and an important formatting rule.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Execute an arbitrary query against a dataset and retrieve data.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by stating 'To get data from an existing chart, use chart_get_data instead.' This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'Allows fetching data directly from a dataset without creating a chart' and names the alternative for existing charts. This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool over chart_get_data. Although other siblings exist, the most relevant alternative is clearly identified.

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