gaql_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses read-only behavior, restriction to SELECT queries, and inability to modify data. It also mentions the limit's default and hard cap, providing important execution context. Minor absence of pagination/error details, but core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 appropriately sized: a concise purpose statement, a usage directive, and a clear args list. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler or repetition of schema fields without added value.

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 flexibility and the presence of an output schema, the description covers essential context: what it does, when to use it, and its security constraints. It omits details like query language specifics or potential error cases, but for a generic query tool, this is adequate and complete for most agents.

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 0%, but the description fully documents all three parameters: customer_id as account, query as a GAQL SELECT statement, and limit with default/hard cap. This adds meaning that the bare schema lacks, fully compensating for the coverage gap.

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 'Run a read-only GAQL query against an account', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as a catch-all for anything not covered by packaged tools, making its purpose unique and clear.

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?

Explicitly provides usage context: 'Use this for anything the packaged tools do not cover.' It also states constraints (only SELECT accepted) without listing all siblings as alternatives, which is sufficient because the sibling list is visible and this tool explicitly covers the gaps.

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