query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavior: a 200-row cap, next_skip pagination signal, Hebrew text fields, and OData v4 syntax, going beyond annotation coverage.

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 dense sentences plus one compact example carry all the key operational details. There is no filler, and the most important constraints (row cap, pagination, language) are front-loaded.

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 generic OData query tool with no output schema, the description covers pagination, row limits, text language, and gives a syntax example. It could be more complete with explicit guidance on how to discover table names or when to prefer sibling tools, but schema and annotations cover most remaining needs.

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 meaning by showing a realistic combination of table, filter, orderby, and expand, and by explaining that skip should use next_skip from the previous call. This is helpful but not essential given 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 clear action ('Query any Knesset table with OData v4 options') followed by concrete behavior and an example. It implies a general-purpose role distinct from sibling tools like get_record or get_bill, but it does not explicitly name those distinctions.

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 phrase 'any Knesset table' and the example imply this is the general-purpose query tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of specialized sibling tools like search_bills or get_person.

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