get_query_filters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the read-only nature by stating 'Read' and 'Retrieves', and it explains the semantics of each filter type (Fixed Filter, Default Value, combination) and that they are derived from usageType. It also gives concrete examples (e.g., 0FISCVARNT = V5). However, it does not mention potential edge cases, error conditions, or authentication requirements, but for a read operation these are less critical. It provides solid transparency beyond the basic function.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action. It uses bullet points for the filter types, which improves readability and comprehension. Every sentence contributes value, though it is slightly verbose with examples. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool and avoids fluff.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool returns (filter types and their meanings). It explains the three filter categories with examples, which is essential for the agent to interpret results correctly. It does not cover all possible scenarios (e.g., no filters, invalid query name), but for a read-only retrieval tool this level of completeness is adequate.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (query_name and object_version), including an example and the default value. The description adds no extra parameter-specific information—it only explains the overall tool behavior. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not need to duplicate or extend parameter documentation. Thus, a score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool reads filter restrictions from a BW Query, identifying the specific resource (query filters) and the action (read/extract). It details what it returns (fixed values and variable references) and distinguishes between filter types, making its purpose unambiguous and differentiated from siblings that handle other aspects of BW objects.

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 usage (if you need to know the global filter restrictions on a query, use this tool) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no comparison to sibling tools like get_query_structure or list_queries, nor any exclusion criteria. The context is clear from the content, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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