lc_estimate_search_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the action (estimate) but omits behavioral details like whether it is read-only, what happens on error, or any rate limits. The minimal description fails to disclose important traits beyond the basic purpose.

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 single-sentence description is very concise and front-loaded with the key action, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, more substance is needed.

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 number of parameters, lack of output schema, and zero annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify return values, prerequisites, or how this tool fits among many sibling query tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'start' and 'end' by mentioning 'unix-second time window', but leaves 'oid', 'query', and 'stream' unexplained. This partial compensation yields a score of 3.

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?

Description specifies the action 'estimate an LCQL query' and the context 'against an explicit unix-second time window', clearly identifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like lc_validate_search_query or lc_execute_search_query, which could cause confusion despite the distinct 'estimate' focus.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling query-related tools (e.g., lc_execute_search_query, lc_validate_search_query, lc_poll_search_query), the absence of usage context makes it hard for an agent to decide.

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