queries_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. The word 'seguro' (safe) vaguely implies it is non-destructive, but it does not state whether it is read-only, what side effects might occur, permission requirements, or any limitations. For a tool that executes a query, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core function without fluff. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 generic query runner with no output schema, no examples, and an undocumented 'fields' parameter, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot reliably construct a valid call without additional context that the description does not provide. The tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata demand a richer description.

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 only 50% (only 'spec' has a description, 'fields' has none). The description does not explain the format of the JSON QuerySpec string or the meaning of 'fields'. It adds no value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 states a clear verb (Ejecuta) and resource (QuerySpec), and explains it returns analytical rows. This distinguishes it from sibling analytics_* tools which are specific analyses, while this is a generic query runner. However, the term 'QuerySpec' is not defined, so the purpose relies on prior knowledge of what a QuerySpec is.

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 the many sibling analytics tools (e.g., analytics_waros, analytics_rfm) or how it relates to queries_schema/waro_schema. The agent is left to guess whether this is the right entry point for a query or if the specialized tools are more appropriate.

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