Query Marketing Cloud Next / Data 360 records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that this is a GET/query operation (safe, read-only) and that it supports pagination and filters. However, it doesn't disclose response format, pagination behavior details, or any rate-limit/error considerations. The read-only nature is implied by 'GET' and 'query' but not explicitly stated.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. It mentions supported features (pagination, filters) without excessive detail. The only minor issue is that 'family-specific filters' is vague and could be expanded or removed.

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 query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the operation type and supported parameters, but an agent might need more context on how pagination works, what the response looks like, and how this differs from mcnext_read. The schema covers parameter semantics, but behavioral context is thin.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context about pagination and filter capabilities (pageSize, offset, orderBy, family-specific filters), which maps to the query object parameter. However, it doesn't add much 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 states a specific verb ('List/filter records') and resource ('collection endpoint'), and clarifies the HTTP method and kind ('GET, kind "query"'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like mcnext_create/mcnext_update/mcnext_delete, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative for read operations (mcnext_read).

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 implies usage for querying collection endpoints and mentions pagination/filter support, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus mcnext_read or mcnext_describe_endpoint. It also doesn't mention that endpointId should be discovered via mcnext_list_endpoints, though the schema does.

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