icp_query

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose key behaviors. It only mentions supported types but lacks information on authentication, rate limits, error handling, or result structure. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's side effects or constraints.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the verb 'query'. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity; while not verbose, it could be more informative without being lengthy.

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 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema, the description is very incomplete. It does not explain pagination, default values, or output format, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only adds context for the 'type' parameter (web/app/mapp/kapp). It fails to explain 'name', 'page', 'proxy', or 'page_size', leaving the agent guessing their purpose.

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 queries ICP filing information from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, and lists supported types (web/app/mapp/kapp). It is specific about the resource and actions, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like icp_blacklist.

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 implies usage by mentioning supported types, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., icp_blacklist). No context about prerequisites or when not to use it.

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