filter_segments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and mutability. The description adds a useful behavioral trait: that aggregated audit totals alone trigger a structured refusal. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent anticipate failure modes. However, it doesn't disclose success behavior, pagination, or return structure, though an output schema exists.

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, so it's concise and not bloated. However, it's cryptic and not well-structured—it reads like an error condition rather than an overview. It's front-loaded with the condition but the phrasing is convoluted. It earns its place by adding behavioral info, but clarity suffers.

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 has 8 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does with segments, what filters apply, or how output is organized. The output schema covers return values, but the description lacks essential context about the operation's purpose and scope. The precondition about audit manifests is useful but insufficient.

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 only 38%, with split, corpus, and min_quality having descriptions. The description text itself provides no explanation for any parameter (limit, query, exclude_* flags). With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it doesn't mention parameters at all. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter meaning and usage.

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 name 'filter_segments' implies filtering rows/segments, and the description begins with 'Filter rows', so the core action is present. However, it doesn't specify what criteria filter on (quality, duplicates, etc.) or what makes it distinct from search_segments. The description is more about a precondition than a clear statement of purpose.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_segments or list_corpora. It only mentions a precondition (versioned row-level audit manifest), which is a behavioral constraint, not a usage guideline. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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