query_intelligence

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output format (keyword-matched results with timestamps and excerpts) and the LEDGER growth from report_outcome. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or that it has no side effects, relying on the word 'search' to imply this.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the purpose, then add useful behavioral context without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter schema and no output schema, the description adequately explains the data source, result format, and data population via report_outcome. It lacks explicit read-only status and ordering/pagination details, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the search target (LEDGER and Wisdom Codex) and result content, but does not add syntax or format details for query and limit beyond what the schema already provides.

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 searches the Boardroom LEDGER and Wisdom Codex for precedents, past decisions, and insights, with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like report_outcome (which writes) and analyze (which likely analyzes current data).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies use for searching past decisions but does not mention check_governance, trust_lookup, report_outcome, or analyze, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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