Elements Formula Pitfalls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only that the content is a curated reference (implying static, non-mutating data); it says nothing about freshness, coverage limits, or pagination. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The scope enumeration is front-loaded and the call-to-action cue comes last, so the agent gets purpose and timing in one pass.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's burden, and the listed pitfalls fully describe the reference's domain. For a no-parameter, read-only reference tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description needs to, or does, explain inputs, and it correctly focuses on what the tool returns.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return a curated reference of common Sigma formula pitfalls') and enumerates the exact topic coverage — column reference syntax, type requirements, NULL handling, aggregate vs row-level context, date argument order, metrics vs calculated columns. No sibling tool returns formula guidance, so it is distinguishable at a glance.

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?

Gives an explicit activation condition: 'Use this before writing any Sigma formula expression.' That is clear context for when to call it. It does not mention when-not to use it or name adjacent alternatives like elements_search_docs / elements_get_doc_page, so it stops short of a 5.

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