query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'filtering, sorting, and pagination' which hints at read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly state that this is a safe read operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 functionality. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, target, and key capabilities without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary function.

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 complexity (10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. While the output schema may cover return values, the description doesn't address critical context like authentication needs, error handling, rate limits, or detailed parameter guidance. For a query tool with extensive filtering options, 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 10 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description only vaguely references 'filtering, sorting, and pagination' without explaining what parameters correspond to these features or their semantics. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters like 'filterByFormula', 'offset', and 'returnFieldsByFieldId' entirely unexplained.

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 verb ('Query') and resource ('Airtable records') with specific capabilities ('filtering, sorting, and pagination'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create', 'update', and 'upsert' which are write operations, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'describe' or 'list_bases' which might also retrieve data. The purpose is well-defined but could be more specific about what makes this query tool unique.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'query' over 'list_bases', 'describe', or other read operations, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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