op3_query_hits

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses that results span every show unless filtered by URL, and that rows include user agents, byte ranges, and edge information. This adds meaningful behavioral context, though it does not address potential volume/cost implications of querying all shows.

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 compact and well-structured: it states what the tool returns, why that matters, and when to use a different tool. Every sentence earns its place and the key scope limitation is 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 no-output-schema tool, the description gives enough clarity about the kind of data returned and the default cross-show scope. It lacks explicit details about response shape beyond a few example fields, but the schema covers parameters and the description covers semantics sufficiently.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond reaffirming that the URL filter is the scoping mechanism, which is already present in 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 clearly states that the tool returns raw request rows from OP3's redirect log, positioned as the lowest-level verification surface rather than an analytics tool. It explicitly contrasts this with show-level analytics tools, making its scope and purpose easy to distinguish from siblings.

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 explicitly says to use the show tools instead when the question is about a specific show's performance, and frames this tool as a verification surface. This gives the agent clear routing guidance between raw log inspection and analytics queries.

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