range_query

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

Given no annotations, the description partially compensates by disclosing the half-open interval semantics and that unsupported point-only filters return N/A. However, it does not mention read-only nature, performance, or error conditions beyond N/A, leaving 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 a single sentence that concisely explains the core functionality and a key behavioral note. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the query semantics and a special case but omits return format, error handling beyond 'N/A', and performance implications. It is adequate but not complete.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining that 'lo' is the inclusive lower bound and 'hi' the exclusive upper bound. However, it lacks details on string encoding, constraints (e.g., lo must be <= hi), and behavior for invalid inputs.

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 performs a lexicographic half-open range query, specifying the inclusive lower bound and exclusive upper bound. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like prefix_query and contains by explicitly naming the range type.

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 on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., prefix_query, contains). The description only mentions behavior for unsupported filters but does not help an agent decide between alternatives.

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