query_resource

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses sensitive field redaction (unless deployment enables them) and filter validation against schema first. This adds useful behavioral context beyond being a read operation.

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?

Concise bullet-style parameter list with front-loaded purpose. Two sentences of behavioral notes at the end. Avoids redundancy and reads efficiently, though could be slightly more structured.

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 parameters, no annotations, and output schema presence, the description covers core query mechanics and redaction but omits pagination behavior (limit/offset), sorting (order_by), and the total_results parameter. An agent would lack guidance on handling large result sets.

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 coverage is 0%, but description explains 'q' with ADF filter examples, 'fields' with recommendation to use 'describe_resource', and 'expand' for child collections. It ignores 5 other parameters (limit, offset, order_by, resource, total_results), leaving gaps for pagination and ordering.

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 it queries Oracle Fusion HCM resources and brands itself as 'the generic read workhorse.' This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_record' (single record) and 'describe_resource' (metadata), establishing a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 recommends using 'describe_resource' to find valid field names and warns about sensitive field redaction. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer siblings like 'get_record' for single-record fetches, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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