query_fusion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses read-only safety, warns that BIP serializes the entire result set (implying a need for row limits), and specifies single-statement SQL with no trailing semicolon. It doesn't mention authentication or error cases, but the fusion_user parameter and default help cover access.

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: a one-sentence summary leads into a clear Args list with specific details for each parameter. No unnecessary words; every line adds value.

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 covers purpose, read-only behavior, output format, serialization risk, and parameter constraints. An output schema is present, reducing the need to detail return values. Missing items like error handling and authentication are minor given the fusion_user parameter and default, and the tool appears adequately specified.

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 must fully explain parameters, and it does. For sql, it explains syntax criteria and result-size implications; for columns, it dictates aliasing and ordering; for fusion_user, it gives the default. This far exceeds the bare schema and provides all necessary operational meaning.

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 specific verb+resource+operation: 'Run a read-only SELECT against Oracle Fusion and return the rows as XML.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_report or deploy_report, which handle predefined reports and data models, while query_fusion is for direct SQL queries.

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 provides practical parameter usage guidance (e.g., 'Add WHERE/ROWNUM to keep the result small') but does not explicitly state when to use query_fusion versus alternatives like run_report or get_catalog_object. The read-only SELECT nature implies ad-hoc querying, but no when/when-not comparisons are given.

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