database_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions query/filter behavior and preview/export features but doesn't state whether this is read-only, what the output format looks like, whether it mutates data, whether results are paginated, or the response shape. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, more disclosure is needed.

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 sentences, efficient. The first sentence sets the purpose, the second covers output. No wasted words. Though the 'interactive UI' phrase is somewhat out of place for a programmatic tool, overall the structure is compact and front-loaded.

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 filterable query tool with 5 parameters all documented in schema and no output schema, the description covers the basic intent and output features (table preview, export). However, it omits behavior like default date range (30d, though the schema states this in the dateRange description) and doesn't clarify the export behavior or return structure, making it adequate but not complete for a tool with no annotations.

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 all 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema itself. The description does list the filter dimensions matching the parameters (date range, category, status, sales rep, amount), adding modest value by grouping them contextually. However, the description doesn't add format details beyond the schema — with 100% coverage, baseline 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?

Clear verb+resource (query sales database), and specific filter dimensions (date range, category, status, sales rep, amount). However, the mention of 'interactive UI' is confusing for a function tool, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings (though siblings are generic names like hello_world, list_sort, so no real conflict). Slightly muddled by the UI reference but the core purpose is clear.

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 implies 'use when needing to query/filter sales data' and lists the filter dimensions, giving implicit context for when to use. However, there are no explicit exclusions, when-not-to-use guidance, or alternative tool callouts. The intent is reasonably inferable but not explicitly stated.

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