listQueries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that results are 'summaries newest-ingest first' and that the complete SQL and evidence require a follow-up getQuery call. This informs ordering and return granularity without contradicting the annotations.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the tool's purpose and filter dimensions; the second explains result ordering and directs the agent to getQuery for deeper detail. This is efficient, front-loaded, and every clause adds useful 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?

For a read-only browsing/search tool, the description is complete: it explains the resource, the search dimensions, the result type ('summaries'), the sort order ('newest-ingest first'), and the relationship to getQuery for full detail. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required in the description. Combined with the schema's thorough parameter documentation and the non-destructive annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 because the schema already documents all nine parameters. The description does add a light conceptual grouping ('source, business metadata, parse status or free text'), but this mostly mirrors parameter names like sourceKind, sourcePath, businessDomain, parseStatus, and searchText. It does not introduce new semantic detail such as value formats, LIKE patterns, or interaction between filters beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Browse or search') on a specific resource ('stored usage-catalog queries') and lists the filtering dimensions: source, business metadata, parse status, and free text. It also distinguishes itself from getQuery by noting that listQueries returns summaries while getQuery provides complete SQL and evidence. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and separable from its siblings.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool versus getQuery: use listQueries for browsing/searching summaries, then getQuery for full SQL and evidence of a selected record. It does not explicitly mention exclusions against searchObjects or other sibling search-like tools, but the emphasis on 'usage-catalog queries' implies the intended scope. The guidance is clear enough for an agent to make a sound initial selection.

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