list_available_query_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly describes the output format (a list with short descriptions) and adds context about what query result types are. It doesn't disclose potential caveats like ordering or pagination, but for a simple listing operation this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes a useful explanatory second sentence. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter tool with an output schema. The description fully explains what the tool does, what its return value contains, and provides background context on query result types. There is nothing missing for an agent to confidently invoke this tool.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so there is no parameter information to add. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description doesn't claim any parameters, which is consistent and complete.

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 uses a specific verb ('List all available') and resource ('clearskies query result types') and clearly states what is returned (short description of each). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming a distinct resource type, so the agent can immediately know its scope.

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 implies usage: if you need to discover available query result types, this is the tool to call. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus sibling tools like list_available_query or get_query_result_info, and it doesn't mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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