query_nrql

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses potential query timeouts for high-volume apps and recommends shorter time windows. It also mentions default LIMIT behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (NRQL is typically read-only) or address rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 relatively long but efficiently packed with useful tips. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then lists event types and tips. While every sentence adds value, it could be slightly more concise by grouping tips more tightly.

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 complexity of NRQL and the absence of an output schema, the description covers query construction well but does not mention the return format (e.g., results as JSON) or pagination. The tips are comprehensive for typical usage, but a brief note on expected output would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema by listing common event types, providing NRQL tips (time ranges, TIMESERIES, FACET, uniqueCount(), LIMIT), and explaining time range formats. This helps users construct effective queries.

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 clearly states 'Execute a NRQL query against New Relic' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like entity_search or get_app_performance by offering a general NRQL execution capability, and provides common event types for context.

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 offers detailed tips on when to use features like SINCE, TIMESERIES, FACET, and LIMIT, and advises on time ranges for high-volume apps to avoid timeouts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct comparisons to sibling tools for specific use cases.

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