query_collection_records

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds one genuinely useful non-annotation fact: it requires the CMS api-key auth used by the records endpoint. Beyond that it says nothing about default page/limit behavior or 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?

Core purpose and the table-name scoping are front-loaded, followed by the supported capabilities and the auth note in a parenthetical. Two tight sentences with no filler; nothing is wasted.

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 read-only, 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, paging, filter, sort and auth, which is close to adequate. It omits default paging behavior and any hint of the returned record shape, which an agent building a call would benefit from.

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%, so all five parameters (page, limit, where, order_by, table_name) are already documented with examples in the schema. The description only restates paging, filter and sort, adding no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 (query) and resource (records from a collection / custom data table) scoped by table name. An agent can tell it reads row data rather than collection metadata, distinguishing it from get_collection/list_collections. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls 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?

The description implies the use case (reading collection records) but never states when to use this versus get_collection (which returns the schema/table name), list_collections, or the write-side siblings like new_row. Usage context is left to inference.

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