workiva_wdata_describe_query

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

There are no annotations to disclose safety or side effects, and the description fails to compensate. The word 'describe' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, what happens if the query_id is invalid, or whether special permissions are required. It adds no behavioral context beyond the bare function.

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 brief and front-loaded, avoiding redundant prose. The 'Args' section is clear, though the parameter explanation is thin. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no wasted words, but it could have been slightly more expansive without losing conciseness.

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 low complexity (one required parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what the tool returns (the output schema) and identifies the input needed. However, it lacks any mention of possible errors, prerequisites, or how the output schema is structured, which could leave the agent uncertain in edge cases.

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 only parameter, query_id, is documented as 'The query ID,' which merely restates the parameter name and schema title. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should provide richer semantics—such as where to find the ID, its format, or examples—but it does not. The added value over the schema is minimal.

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's function: 'Describe a Wdata query's output schema.' It uses a specific verb ('describe') and a specific resource ('output schema of a Wdata query'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_query (which retrieves query details) or validate_query. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. For example, it does not say 'Use this to inspect the columns a query will return before running it' or contrast with validate_query. No usage context is provided.

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