query_dataset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are paged, the response reports the true total and a truncated flag, and the paging pattern is unsuitable for cross-sectional ranking. It stops short of discussing auth, rate limits, or result freshness, which is why this is a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and scope, then routing, then pagination behavior — a logical order where most sentences earn their place. The long dataset enumeration is informative but slightly heavy; a pointer to describe_lake alone might have sufficed.

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?

For a 7-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what datasets exist, where to find the canonical list, how results are paged, that the response reports a true total and truncated flag, and when to prefer run_sql. Nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, including date formats, the limit default/cap, offset paging, symbol format, and the provenance default — so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's mentions of 'date window', 'symbol', and 'paged with limit/offset' restate schema content rather than adding syntax or semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Read any other dataset by date window and symbol') and enumerates concrete datasets (fund_flow, margin_trading, dragon_tiger, etc.). It explicitly carves out the sibling tools that handle other data classes (bars → query_bars, financials → query_fundamentals), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules in both directions: use describe_lake for the dataset list and coverage, use query_bars/query_fundamentals for bars and statements, and use run_sql instead of paging when doing cross-sectional ranking. These are concrete when/when-not/alternative statements rather than implied guidance.

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