run_nrql_async

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral trait that it polls until finish, which is genuinely beyond annotations. However, it omits auth requirements, timeout specifics, or return shape (though output schema exists). Given annotations carry safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scoping, then usage context, then the comparison to run_nrql. No waste 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?

For an async query tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema, the description covers purpose, timeout behavior, and usage conditions well. The undocumented account_ids parameter and lack of explicit polling/timeout expectations leave minor gaps, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 50%; the 'query' param has a description in schema ('Long-running NRQL query') but 'account_ids' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter-specific detail. With partial coverage and description silence on account_ids, this is the baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Run a NRQL query') and adds qualifying scope ('that exceeds the synchronous timeout, polling until it finishes'). This distinguishes it from run_nrql by timeout/polling behavior, though it doesn't name the sibling explicitly in contrast terms. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

Explicitly names the condition for use ('wide time windows or heavy aggregations') and states it is 'slower than run_nrql, so it is not the default choice,' which effectively conveys when to prefer the alternative. Lacks an explicit 'avoid when' rule but provides strong context for selection.

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