query_collection_records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the CMS api-key auth requirement. The term 'query' implies a read-only operation, and the mention of paging/filter/sort provides insight into behavior. It doesn't mention side effects (likely none) or errors, but for a read query this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the core action, the second lists features and auth. Front-loaded with purpose, no redundant text, every sentence carries meaning.

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 moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: what it does, auth, and key capabilities. It doesn't describe the return format explicitly, but 'query records' implies a record list, and the schema covers parameters. This is sufficient for a read tool, though a note on response shape would be helpful.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds only a summary of capabilities ('paging + an optional where filter and order_by sort') without new details beyond the schema. The schema already provides thorough explanations and examples for each parameter.

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 function with a specific verb ('Query'), a resource ('records from a collection'), and a key qualifier ('by table name'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_collections and get_collection, which operate on collections rather than records.

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 establishes clear context: it is for querying records with optional filters and sorting. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the sibling context makes it obvious. The auth note adds a practical usage consideration. A 4 reflects the clear context without explicit when-not or alternative guidance.

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