qobrix_search_dsl_help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a caching behavior ('schema fetch is response-cached') and the content of the returned reference (operators, functions, date helpers, association paths, two-tier relevance recipe). However, it doesn't explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe the response format, though those are less critical for a help tool.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and packs necessary details (DSL contents, resource parameter, caching, when to call) without repetition or filler. Every sentence contributes actionable information.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema) and its role as a reference/help tool, the description fully covers what it returns, what it includes, how to set the resource, that the schema fetch is cached, and when to call it (before composing free-language queries). No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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 documents the optional `resource` parameter with 100% description coverage, including the caveat to use 'Properties' or 'Projects' (case-insensitive). The description adds examples like 'Opportunities' and 'Contacts', which conflict with the schema's stated valid values, potentially misleading the agent. The caching behavior is also already noted in the schema, so the description adds little genuine semantic value beyond the contradictory examples.

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 'Return the full Qobrix Search Expression DSL reference' with a specific resource type, and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling search tools by indicating it helps build correct `search` strings and `boost[]` clauses for ANY qobrix_search_* tool. This is a specific verb+resource that separates it from the sibling tools.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call before composing free-language queries.' It also scopes applicability to 'ANY qobrix_search_* tool' and lists the resources covered, which tells the agent exactly when to invoke this reference tool. No alternatives are mentioned because none exist for a help/reference function.

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