Hunt Schema

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

With annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the safety profile is well established. The description adds that the tool documents 'how fresh the index is', giving agents awareness of data staleness considerations. The 'call once' guidance signals it's a static/rarely-changing reference, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence enumerates precisely what the grammar covers (fields, aliases, scoped vs denormalized fields, operators, stats-pipe, examples, index freshness) and ends with a direct call-to-action. Zero wasted words; every clause carries meaningful content.

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?

This is a documentation/grammar tool with zero parameters and an output schema available. The description fully enumerates what content the grammar covers, making it complete for the agent's decision-making needs. The mention of index freshness addresses a subtle concern (data currency) that wouldn't be apparent from the schema alone. The output schema covers return structure, so no further elaboration is needed.

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 has zero parameters, making parameter documentation moot. The 100% schema coverage signal combined with zero params means there is nothing to explain. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's RETURN VALUE rather than inputs, and since an output schema exists, the return structure is already documented structurally.

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 this tool returns the hunt query grammar — the complete reference for filterable fields, aliases, operators, stats-pipe form, examples, and index freshness. It has a specific resource (hunt query grammar) and a clear purpose (documentation/reference retrieval). Among siblings, it distinguishes itself as the meta/schema tool that supports the 'hunt' tool specifically.

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 ends with explicit usage guidance: 'Call once before writing a hunt query.' This directly tells the agent WHEN to invoke it. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the tool's unique role (schema reference for writing queries) is self-evident, and the instruction 'call once' provides timing guidance that effectively communicates its consultative usage pattern.

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