rca_analysis_query_results

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it does not load every full result record, and specifies the return format (JSON with total, results, has_more). No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences followed by a brief args/returns list. Front-loaded with purpose and key differentiator. No wasted words.

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 tool's moderate complexity, annotations cover safety, description covers filtering scope, efficiency, return format, and sibling comparison. Output schema exists (not shown) but return type is described. Complete for an indexed query 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% per context signals, but the description lists the key parameters (model_family, min_confidence, after_ts, tags, limit, offset) without further detail. It adds minimal value over the schema, but at least identifies the filtering capabilities.

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 the tool queries stored RCA results with filters, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling rca_analysis_list_results by being more efficient for filtered lookups.

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 says it is more efficient for filtered lookups compared to rca_analysis_list_results, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but the comparison implies context.

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