compile_query

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

Given the readOnlyHint annotation, the description already benefits from safety disclosure. It adds useful behavioral context: diagnostics are parser-level only, and error_token may be positioned after the actual root cause. This goes beyond annotations and helps set expectations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description is complete for a tool with a simple purpose, a read-only annotation, a full schema, and an output schema. It covers the key limitation (parser-level only) and an important behavior (error_token position), making it sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to given the high coverage.

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 compiles TimeBase QQL queries, with a specific verb ('compile') and resource ('TimeBase QQL query'). It also distinguishes itself from full semantic validation, which sets it apart from sibling tools like execute_query.

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 clear context by noting it returns only parser-level diagnostics, not full validation, implying it is for quick syntax checks. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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