Run Gaql

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

The description adds a useful behavioral detail: it uses the non-streaming search endpoint for consistent JSON parsing. However, with no annotations, it doesn't disclose safety, permissions, errors, pagination, or limits, though the output schema covers return shape.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is efficient, though slightly too terse to compensate for the missing parameter and usage context.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, one sentence is not enough. The output schema helps with return values, but the agent is left guessing about parameter semantics and when to choose this tool over siblings.

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 needed to explain the roles of query, customer_id, and manager_id. It mentions none of them; 'GAQL' only faintly implies that query holds a GAQL string.

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 action and resource: 'Execute GAQL' via a specific endpoint. It is easy to tell this is a raw GAQL query executor, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling reporting 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the 12 sibling report tools. The agent isn't told that this is for ad-hoc GAQL queries or that specific tools should be preferred for standard reports.

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