firestore-query-collection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Query' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether it's safe (non-destructive), what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. For a query tool with complex parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (4 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the query returns, how results are structured, error conditions, or performance considerations. For a database query tool with rich input schema but no output documentation, this creates significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how filters combine, what 'value' can be, or practical examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Query') and resource ('documents in a Firestore collection'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'firestore-get-collection' or 'firestore-query-collection-by-path', which would require more detailed comparison.

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. With multiple query-related siblings (e.g., 'firestore-query-collection-by-path', 'firestore-get-collection'), there's no indication of when this specific query method is preferred or what distinguishes it from other retrieval tools.

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