flex_send_request

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

With no annotations, the description provides some transparency by explaining that query_id and token override environment variables and by documenting the return JSON structure. It does not disclose potential side effects, error statuses, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving gaps.

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 brief and front-loaded, with a clear first sentence, followed by a compact argument list and return format. Every sentence adds value without 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 a tool with two optional parameters and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return format adequately. It does not detail potential error cases or alternative flows, but is largely complete for its simplicity.

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 description gives meaningful explanations for both parameters, including their purpose and environment variable overrides. Since the schema has 0% description coverage, this fully compensates and adds significant value.

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 initiates a Flex query and returns a reference_code, which is a specific verb+resource. It indicates the output is used with flex_get_statement, providing some differentiation from sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with flex_run_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 description implies usage context by mentioning the reference_code is for use with flex_get_statement, suggesting a two-step workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like flex_run_query, nor does it provide exclusions.

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