query_work

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds the markdown output format and the three filter dimensions, which is useful. However, it omits behavior when no filters are provided (e.g., returns all or empty), filter combination logic (AND vs OR), and date range inclusivity—details that would aid correct invocation.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and output format with no fillers. Every word earns its place, making it optimally concise.

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 has 5 optional parameters and an output schema (which likely documents return structure), the description covers the main filtering dimensions and markdown output. Yet it lacks guidance on default behavior, filter combination semantics, and the role of the 'enrich' parameter in practice. For a filtered retrieval tool of this complexity, more context would be beneficial.

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 only 20% (only 'enrich' has a description), so the description must compensate. It names the filter types (company, date range, topic) which maps to company, start_year/end_year, and topic parameters, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't clarify parameter format (e.g., year strings) or how enrich relates to the filter criteria, leaving gaps.

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 filters work entries by company, date range, or topic, and returns markdown. The verb+resource+criteria are specific, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling query_by_topic, which likely narrows the scope; this is a minor gap.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that query_by_topic exists for topic-only queries, nor does it state any prerequisites or scenarios where this is preferred. The agent must infer usage from the schema alone.

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