item-service-run-stored-query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is read-only or mutative, potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with complex parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could benefit from additional context.

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 complexity (2 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or the semantics of the options parameter. For a query execution tool with rich configuration, this leaves too much undefined for reliable agent use.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'definition item ID' which maps to the 'id' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'options' object or its nested properties (database, language, pagination, fields, etc.). It adds minimal value beyond the bare schema, failing to compensate 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 the action ('Run') and resource ('stored Sitecore query'), specifying it's executed by 'definition item ID'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'item-service-run-stored-search' by focusing on stored queries rather than searches, but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'item-service-run-stored-search' or 'item-service-search-items'. The description implies usage when you have a stored query ID, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. It's a basic statement without operational guidance.

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