query_describe

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that, indicating a non-mutating operation. It adds the behavioral idea that the tool produces a description rather than executing the query, but it does not disclose output format or whether a connection is required. The output schema likely covers return details, so this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. It earns its place, though it is slightly underspecified.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the core purpose is conveyed. However, the description lacks any mention of when to prefer this tool over related query tools or what kind of description the agent should expect. It is minimally complete but leaves selection and expectation-setting to inference.

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%: the query parameter has a type, description, and an example. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a clear verb+resource pair: 'Describe what a Jaquel query does.' It is unambiguous about the tool's action, and the resource (Jaquel query) matches the input schema. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like query_validate or query_get_pattern, so it stops short of a 5.

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 such as query_validate, query_get_pattern, or query_execute. The description merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the name and siblings.

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