execute_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds a behavioral constraint beyond that: 'Only query operations are allowed.' This clarifies that mutations and subscriptions are not permitted, which is not inferable from readOnlyHint alone. The description also confirms the read-only nature, adding value without contradicting the annotation.

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 a single sentence of about 15 words, front-loaded with the core action ('Execute a read-only GraphQL query'). Every word contributes to defining the tool's purpose and constraints. There is zero redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient for selection and invocation understanding. It specifies the endpoint, operation type, and read-only nature. It doesn't describe return format or authentication details, but those are covered by schema and the general understanding of GraphQL. The sibling context makes the role clear, so a 4 is adequate.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on any parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. It adds no extra semantic context for parameters like 'query' or 'endpoint', so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's action: 'Execute a read-only GraphQL query against the endpoint.' The verb 'execute' and resource 'GraphQL query' are specific, and the restriction to 'query operations' differentiates it from sibling tools that explore schema (e.g., get_graphql_schema, filter_queries). It is a precise, unambiguous statement.

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 when to use the tool: for executing GraphQL queries, while sibling tools are for schema exploration. The statement 'Only query operations are allowed' provides a usage constraint, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of X'. The context signals and sibling names make the differentiation clear, earning a score of 4.

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