query_validate

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so no safety contradiction exists. The description adds that validation covers syntax errors and best practices, giving useful behavioral scope beyond the annotations. It does not detail the exact validation rules, but the output schema can cover the return shape.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the core action is stated immediately.

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 validator with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It could explicitly clarify that validation does not execute the query or contrast itself with query_execute, but the schema and annotations cover the remaining essential context.

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%, and the single 'query' parameter is thoroughly documented with a concrete Jaquel query example. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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?

States a specific verb ('Validate'), a specific resource ('Jaquel query structure'), and the exact concerns checked ('syntax errors and best practices'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_execute, query_describe, and query_generate_skeleton.

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 implies the tool is used to check a query before executing it, but it never explicitly says when to use it vs. alternatives or names query_execute as the complementary follow-up. The usage context is inferable but not stated.

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