Raw GraphQL Query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only query, what the response format is, or any risks such as expensive queries. The mention of advanced capabilities implies power but lacks concrete behavioral details.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then a clear preference directive. No filler, well-structured, and every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose, usage, and alternatives. It lacks examples or explicit return-value mention, but GraphQL queries conventionally return results, making this largely complete.

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% with a single 'query' parameter already described clearly. The description does not add extra parameter-level semantics beyond reinforcing it is a raw GraphQL query, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 executes a raw GraphQL query against the subgraph for advanced use cases not covered by other tools. It distinguishes itself from sibling high-level tools by emphasizing custom filters, nested relations, ordering, and aggregations.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool—when needing custom filters, nested relations, ordering, or aggregations not exposed by higher-level tools—and when not to use it by directing users to prefer higher-level tools when they cover the use case.

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