getSearchQuerySpec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile of this static documentation retrieval is covered. The description reinforces this by framing the tool as a source-of-truth reference rather than an action, but adds no further behavioral detail (no caching, versioning, or size caveats), which is acceptable for a pure read of a spec document.

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 one-line purpose before the coverage enumeration, and the call-to-action is last, which is a sound structure. The coverage list is long and dense, but each item describes a distinct capability of the spec document, so it largely earns its place rather than being filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and with zero params there is no parameter gap to close. Annotations cover safety, and the description fully covers scope, trigger conditions, and content so an agent knows exactly when and why to invoke it.

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 tool takes zero parameters (empty schema, 100% coverage trivially), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies: no parameter explanation is required and none is missing.

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: returns the RushDB SearchQuery specification as a reference document, and enumerates the coverage areas precisely. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from similarly reference-oriented siblings such as getQueryBuilderPrompt or getSchemaMarkdown, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of those to prefer.

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 an explicit trigger ('CALL THIS before building any findRecords query that involves dates, metrics, groupBy, relationship traversal, or vector search') and a directive against guessing syntax. It ties usage to the concrete sibling tool (findRecords) whose queries this spec serves.

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