h3yun_query_records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds one meaningful behavioral trait: respecting the signed-in user's data scope. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, result count limits, or whether the query is read-only beyond the implied 'query' verb.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the data-scope caveat is appended as a second useful sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient for selection but not for invocation. It does not address how keyword filtering works, how pagination behaves, or how the data-scope restriction affects results beyond a brief mention.

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 50%, so the schema documents keyword and schema_code but not page_size or page_index. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, leaving pagination semantics entirely undocumented in both the description and 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 ('Query'), a resource ('business records'), and a scope ('for one form'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like h3yun_list_forms or h3yun_get_record, which operate on forms or single records.

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 when to use the tool — when you need records for one form — but it never explicitly names alternatives or exclusion criteria. An agent must infer the boundary against h3yun_get_record and h3yun_list_forms from the description alone.

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