query_eta_data

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

The description explicitly marks the tool as 'read-only', which is a crucial behavioral safety trait given that no annotations are provided. This adds context beyond the schema, but it does not disclose other behaviors like return format or permission requirements, though the read-only note is substantial.

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 sentence of 12 words, front-loading the verb and object. It is clear, direct, and free of unnecessary wording, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, nested objects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, relationship to sibling tools, or when to choose it over aggregate_eta_data. The read-only note is helpful, but overall contextual guidance is insufficient.

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 input schema provides detailed descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage), including examples for sort, query, projection, and limit. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so it aligns with the schema-driven baseline.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Query data from a collection in the eta_raw_data_db MongoDB database.' It distinguishes from some siblings by focusing on direct collection queries, but does not explicitly contrast with aggregate_eta_data or list_eta_collections, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_eta_collections can be used to discover collections or that aggregate_eta_data is better for aggregation pipelines. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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