add_between_filter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for safety and behavior. It explains the internal structure (GTE + LTE joined by And) and scope handling, but it does not disclose whether the filter is additive or replaces existing filters, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or limitations. This leaves notable behavioral gaps for a mutation operation.

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 three concise, information-dense sentences with no filler. Each sentence earns its place: the first defines the operation and scope, the second covers valueType and fieldKind, and the third details scope-specific parameter requirements. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential semantic details: scope handling, value encoding, field kind, and the inclusive bounds meaning. It does not address whether the filter is appended or replaces existing filters, and reportSessionId is left unexplained, but the core usage is clear and well-rounded.

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 schema already covers 90% of parameters with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: lo/hi are inclusive bounds, the operation composes two comparisons, valueType controls literal encoding, and fieldKind distinguishes column vs measure. It also clarifies the conditional requirement for page/visual based on scope, which adds practical usage value.

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 ('Add') combined with a precise resource ('BETWEEN filter') and immediately clarifies the semantic (lo <= field <= hi). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling filter tools by specifying the two-value comparison and the scope options, so an agent can easily see what unique operation it performs.

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?

It provides clear context on when to pass page+visual versus page based on scope, which is helpful for correct invocation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool (e.g., versus add_advanced_filter or add_does_not_contain_filter), so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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