Run GAQL query

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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds important behavioral detail: pagination is handled, rows are capped by limit, and money fields are converted from micros unless disabled. This gives a clear picture of how the tool behaves beyond 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 compact and well-structured, starting with the core action, then usage scope, then key behavioral notes. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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 there is no output schema, the description still provides enough context: it indicates rows are returned, capped by limit, and that micros conversion is applied. It also points to gaql_fields for discoverability, making the tool self-sufficient for a generic query interface.

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?

Every parameter is meaningfully documented: query has an example, limit is described as max rows, customer_id has format and default, and convert_micros behavior is explained in the description. The schema coverage is supplemented by the description, leaving no parameter ambiguous.

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 runs any GAQL query against a customer and explicitly positions it as the fallback for anything not covered by specific report tools, with concrete examples. This distinguishes it from the many sibling report tools and from gaql_fields.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool when specific report tools do not cover the need, and gives examples of uncovered areas. It also provides practical guidance on pagination, row limits, micros conversion, and using gaql_fields for field discovery.

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