query_facts

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden. It implies a read-only action via 'Query' and states a return type, but does not explicitly confirm non-mutation, explain filter combination semantics, or disclose potential side effects or limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool with 8 optional filters.

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 relatively short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args block duplicates the schema property list, but the added notes are useful. It is not overly verbose, though it could be tightened by merging parameter details into a more compact form.

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 8 optional parameters and no output schema specification in the description, the tool lacks essential context: how filters combine (AND/OR), matching semantics (exact vs partial), pagination behavior, or a typical use case. The description is too thin for an agent to confidently construct complex queries, especially without any annotation support.

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?

The Args block provides meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies case-insensitivity for subject/predicate/object, the ISO format for valid_at, a threshold meaning for min_confidence, and a range for limit. Since the schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), this compensation is valuable, though explanations are brief and some are just restatements of the parameter names.

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 the tool queries facts with criteria, which is a clear verb and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like search_facts or list_facts, and 'various criteria' is vague without context. It's more specific than a tautology but lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_facts or list_facts. The description provides no context for selecting this filter-based query over other fact-access tools, leaving the agent to infer its place among siblings.

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