list_queries

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, yet it reveals nothing about behavior: no read-only hint, no pagination behavior (max_results hints at limits but is not explained), no error/empty-result behavior, no performance caveats. Since this is a safe listing operation, a minimal read-only note would substantially improve it.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by a single clarifying clause. There is no filler or repetition; 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?

The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all parameters are schema-documented. The gaps are a missing behavioral note (no safe-read disclosure, given zero annotations) and no routing guidance against search_bw_objects or the other list_* siblings. For a listing tool of moderate complexity, this is adequate but leaves the sibling-differentiation question open.

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 schema fully documents all four parameters — the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only conceptual grounding (queries sit on CompositeProviders/ADSOs) which helps interpret the info_provider filter, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List BEx/BW Queries in the system') and adds domain context ('Queries are reporting definitions built on top of CompositeProviders or ADSOs') that clarifies what queries are. It's clear, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling search_bw_objects, which could conceivably also surface queries.

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 main description offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as search_bw_objects or list_composite_providers. The only usage hint is buried inside the info_provider parameter description ('This is the recommended way to list the queries built on a specific provider'), which is not front-loaded and does not address the broader routing question.

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