tigergraph__get_query_description

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing 'Requires TigerGraph 4.0+,' a version prerequisite not present in the schema or annotations. It could also mention behavior for nonexistent queries, but with annotations carrying the safety burden, the added version constraint earns a strong score.

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 well-organized with clearly labeled sections (Use When, Quick Start, Tips, Related Tools) and front-loads the core purpose. It is slightly longer than necessary with some redundancy between the Tips and the schema's parameter descriptions, but every section serves a navigational purpose.

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 simple read-only metadata tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, version requirement, use cases, a concrete example, and related tools. The return shape is adequately implied by the first sentence, and no critical information for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all three parameters including the 'all' default for query_name. The description reinforces this with a Quick Start example and the tips, adding marginal value but not meaningfully compensating 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the description and parameter descriptions of one or more installed queries,' which is precise and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_query_metadata by implying that this tool provides descriptions while get_query_metadata provides types, though this differentiation is implied via the pairing tip rather than stated explicitly in the purpose sentence.

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 'Use When' section lists three concrete scenarios (discovering query behavior, building documentation, understanding parameters), and the Tips section names alternatives and complements (get_query_metadata, update_query_description). It provides clear context but lacks an explicit 'when not to use' exclusion, so it falls just short of the top score.

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