query_provider

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It returns 'raw provider response' and explains parameters but lacks explicit statements about side effects, permissions, or safety. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Description is concise: one sentence stating purpose, then a list of parameters with brief definitions. No redundancy. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Has output schema (not shown but present), so return values described implicitly. Description mentions 'raw provider response'. For a query tool, this is fairly complete, though it could mention potential errors or prerequisites.

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 adds detailed explanations for all 5 parameters, e.g., 'selection: Optional WHERE clause; can include ? placeholders.' This adds significant value beyond 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 'Query a content provider URI' and explains it returns raw provider response, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like read_provider by mentioning its use with the injection scanner.

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 says 'Useful in concert with the injection scanner — once you find an injectable URI, this tool exercises it,' providing a clear scenario for when to use. It doesn't explicitly exclude other uses, but gives good context.

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