describe_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explains that the tool returns parameters, drilldowns, response shape, and caveats, which gives a clear picture of what to expect. It does not list specific caveats, but the mention of them is useful and aligns with the 'describe' nature.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately followed by usage instructions. Every word is necessary, and the use of backticks for code and examples is clean and 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 one-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and how to source the parameter. It mentions caveats, hinting at possible edge cases. It doesn't repeat return value details (handled by output schema), so it is complete for its complexity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description compensates by explaining that query_type is a slug from `list_query_types` and provides examples. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the bare schema, though a full list of valid slugs would be even better.

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's purpose: 'Describe a query-type' with specific details on what is described (parameters, drilldowns, response shape, caveats). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_summary or query by focusing on describing query types rather than executing them or retrieving data.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Pass a slug from `list_query_types`' with concrete examples. This implies a prerequisite workflow and gives clear context on how to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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