validate_nrql_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the tool returns the query as it would be sent, including automatically appended SINCE and LIMIT clauses, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 two efficiently structured sentences: the first front-loads the tool's purpose, and the second adds return-value context. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 simple one-parameter input, rich annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly states the tool's purpose and return behavior, though it could do more to guide when to use this tool versus the sibling execution tools like run_nrql.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single query parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning. The description does not add any additional syntax or format details for the query parameter, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check a NRQL query against the server guardrails without running it.' It also distinguishes this tool from execution tools like run_nrql by explicitly saying it works without running the query.

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 phrase 'without running it' implies that this tool is for validation rather than execution, giving a clear contextual cue. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as run_nrql or state when validation should be preferred, leaving the agent to infer the usage scenario.

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