nds_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'safe' and 'no raw SQL input', implying protection against injection, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the response format is, how errors are handled, or that there is a hard limit cap (which is only in the schema). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's own type/constraint information.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence of 12 words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Safe structured query builder') and follows with essential capabilities ('filter/sort/paginate; no raw SQL input'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested filtering objects, multiple database libraries) and the absence of an output schema, the description is too terse to be complete. It does not mention the supported libraries, the fact that it queries nuclear/EXFOR data, or the default selection behavior. The schema provides structure, but the description fails to provide essential high-level context needed by an agent to appropriately invoke this tool.

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 71%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level conceptual summary ('filter/sort/paginate') that maps to the where, order_by, limit, and offset parameters, but it does not provide any specific parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already offers. It does not compensate for the 29% of parameters lacking schema descriptions (e.g., offset lacks a description, but the summary covers its general role).

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 identifies the tool as a structured query builder over SQLite tables, with explicit mention of filter/sort/paginate and no raw SQL input. This distinguishes it from raw SQL execution tools, but it does not explicitly contrast it with the specialized sibling query tools (e.g., nds_query_gammas, nds_query_levels), so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool versus the specialized query tools. It implies safe, structured querying but does not state when to choose nds_query over nds_query_gammas or others, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Instead of guiding selection, it relies on the tool name and sibling context.

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