Instruction query by mnemonic/operand

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: it does not disclose that scopeless scans require allow_broad, that scanning is bounded by max_scan_insns, or that results are capped at 5000 — all behaviors that materially affect how the tool is invoked.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler and the core capability front-loaded. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity tips into under-specification rather than tight conciseness.

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 query tool whose schema is fully documented and which has an output schema covering return values, the minimum an agent needs is present. However, the interaction between allow_broad, max_scan_insns, and the count/offset pagination window is left entirely to the schema, which is a meaningful gap for a nested-query tool.

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%, with every one of the 15 nested query fields documented inline (mnem, op0-op2, op_any, start/end/func/segment, count, offset, include_disasm, include_fn, allow_broad, max_scan_insns). The description only restates 'mnemonic/operand filters and scoped scans,' adding no meaning 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 ('instructions') and names the filter axes (mnemonic/operand) plus scope. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the many sibling query tools (func_query, entity_query, xref_query, imports_query), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no stated prerequisites. The phrase 'scoped scans' hints that scoping matters but never says when a scopeless scan is appropriate or that allow_broad gates it.

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