query_dmc_boms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool queries a table; it does not disclose read-only nature, destructiveness, authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, or output format. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

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 extremely concise at two sentences: one for purpose, one for required workflow. Every sentence is valuable and front-loaded. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the high number of parameters (8), full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally complete. It lacks behavioral notes and output description, but the parameter information is already in the schema. The workflow instruction adds some context, but overall the description could be more informative about the tool's behavior and results.

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% (all 8 parameters have descriptions in the JSON schema). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation. It does not enhance or clarify parameter usage 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'query Bill of Materials components (BOM_COMPONENT table) linking parents to assembly materials.' It specifies the resource and action, and while siblings exist, they query different entities (e.g., query_dmc_downtimes), so the name and description are sufficient to distinguish.

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 includes a 'REQUIRED WORKFLOW' instructing the agent to compile findings into a report and invoke send_report_to_teams. This provides clear guidance on follow-up actions, but it does not give when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternative tools.

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