Execute DQL

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about read-only semantics, Grail cost/budget implications (despite a dynatrace_reset_grail_budget sibling implying budget limits), result caps, or latency for long ranges. For a raw query tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and each sentence carrying distinct information (what it does, preferred alternative, input constraint). No padding or repetition.

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?

A ten-parameter raw query tool with no annotations and no output schema: the description should at minimum hint at return shape, result caps, or cost behavior. It gives only the DQL-validity precondition, leaving the agent to infer how results come back and how the time/connection parameters interact.

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 80%, so most parameters (from/to/around/window/startDate/endDate/connection/allowLongRange) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that 'dql' must be valid DQL and adds no detail on the time-window or connection parameters. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Run a DQL query against Grail.' An agent can immediately tell this is the generic/raw query executor rather than a templated domain tool. It stops short of naming a specific sibling as the alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'Use templated tools when possible' gives explicit when-not guidance and points the agent away from raw DQL toward the domain-specific siblings. 'Requires valid DQL, not natural language' is a concrete precondition. It never names which templated tool to prefer, so routing is left partly to inference.

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