Probe DQL Hit Counts

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful interpretive behavior: zero hits signals a bad value and a count equal to the bare type:X count signals an ignored field path. It does not mention batch-size limits, cost/latency of probing many queries, or rate limits, which are the remaining behavioral gaps for a batch tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then diagnostics, then pitfalls, then the docs link – a sensible priority order with no wasted sentences. The parenthetical '(co-constrained {} vs loose, category vs descriptors)' is somewhat compressed and takes a moment to parse, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 single-parameter, read-only batch probe with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers purpose, pitfalls, and how to interpret results. It omits only practical limits such as how many queries may be submitted at once, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already states queries must start with type:X, so the description gets no credit for repeating format. It does add real semantic constraints on parameter values that the schema lacks: similarTo queries cannot be probed and unfiltered type:Article queries are off-limits, plus concrete examples of useful variant shapes (co-constrained {} vs loose, category vs descriptors).

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?

States a specific operation (return hit counts for several DQL queries at once) with an explicit purpose (compare variants before pulling rows), which separates it from the sibling `dql` tool that returns actual rows. An agent can tell from the first clause exactly what it gets back: counts, not data.

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?

Gives positive when-to-use guidance (compare co-constrained {} vs loose, category vs descriptors before pulling rows) and explicit exclusions (similarTo cannot be probed; never probe an unfiltered type:Article). The 'before pulling rows' framing implicitly routes row retrieval to the sibling dql tool, so the agent knows both when to call this and when to call something else.

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