query_com

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses read-only semantics, local write-text rejection before host transport, the authenticated /com/execute hop, and the required QA_MCP_HOST_AGENT / QA_MCP_HOST_AGENT_TOKEN config plus host install prerequisite. It omits timeout/max_rows behavior and any rate or failure-mode detail.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then supplies mechanism and prerequisites. The transport and env-var detail is dense but each sentence carries operational information; no obvious padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the safety/auth prerequisites are covered. But for a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and zero schema coverage, the description leaves parameter meaning entirely undocumented, which is a real gap.

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?

Seven parameters at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It never explains infobase_path, user, password, prog_id, max_rows, or timeout_sec; only the query parameter is indirectly touched via the write-rejection note.

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+resource ('Run a read-only 1C query') and specifies the mechanism and data path ('query through the Windows host-agent COM bridge', 'file-infobase data path for model-B installs without OData'). An agent can identify the operation, though it does not explicitly contrast with likely alternatives like advanced_search or read_record.

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?

Gives clear context for when this path applies ('model-B installs without OData') and states that write-shaped query text is rejected locally. However, it never names an alternative tool for when this path is not available, leaving routing to inference.

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