opensearch_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does add value by explaining the proxy behavior ('returns COMPACT formatted output instead of raw JSON'), detailing output formats, and emphasizing full query flexibility. Yet it lacks information on potential side effects, permissions, error handling, or performance implications, which prevents a higher score.

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 well-structured: it opens with a clear purpose, then uses bulleted lists for capabilities and output formats, making it easy to scan. Length is justified by the tool's flexibility, though some redundancy exists between 'ANY' and the enumerated query types.

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 tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers essential aspects: what it does, how to build queries, and what output formats are available. It does not provide explicit examples of synthesized output or discuss handling of large result sets, but the guidance is sufficient for a competent agent to infer expected behavior.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description enhances the output_format parameter by explaining each mode (auto, table, list, summary, compact_json) and enriches the query parameter by providing concrete examples of DSL constructs (bool, has_parent, aggregations, etc.), adding real meaning beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 'Execute ANY OpenSearch DSL query and return synthesized results,' with an explicit list of supported query types and aggregations. This specific verb+resource+scope differentiates it from sibling tools like opensearch_count and opensearch_mapping, which are narrower in function.

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 usage context through phrases like 'FULL FLEXIBILITY' and lists a wide range of query capabilities, effectively positioning this as the go-to tool for complex OpenSearch queries. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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