execute_gaql

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that the tool is read-only (SELECT only), potential permissions needed, rate limits, or error handling. The behavior is ambiguous despite the word 'query'.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a generic tool.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description lacks important context: it does not mention SELECT-only semantics (though implied by schema), differences from generic_mutate, or when to consult the sibling get_gaql_reference. The broad 'any query' claim is potentially misleading without guardrails.

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. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ("Execute") and resource (GAQL query), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_campaign_performance or update_campaign_budget. Expanding the acronym adds clarity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not state it is for read-only queries or that specific getter tools should be preferred for common scenarios. Only an implied general-purpose usage.

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