query

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses behavior: it returns a uniform envelope with specified fields, defaults for window to the calendar, and lists options. It does not mention authorization or rate limits, but for a query tool, the description 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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence explaining the tool's purpose, followed by bullet-like explanations of each parameter and the return structure. Every part is necessary and earned its place.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, many siblings), the description is moderately complete. It explains the main parameters and return envelope but omits the 'year' parameter and does not fully clarify how the 'select' object works (schema says it's an object, description implies specific strings). More detail would be beneficial.

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 compensate. It adds meaning by listing possible values for select and category, describing window as ISO dates with default, and options as a set of flags. However, it fails to mention the 'year' parameter present in the schema, which is a gap.

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 that the tool is a flexible category selector that picks combinations of entity and category in one call, listing specific options. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., get_summary, get_combined) by implying it can replace multiple specific tools.

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 clear context on what the tool does and how to use it (select and category options, window, options). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or when not to use it.

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