run_a_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals constraints such as 'Main table must be included', value formatting requirements, and a default limit of 20, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what the response format is, or what 'max' means in the limit line.

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 front-loaded with a clear summary followed by an organized Args list. It includes valuable examples and constraints without excessive prose. Minor issues like the typo 'Dictonary' and the ambiguous 'limit: default: 20, max' keep it from being perfect.

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?

The parameter coverage is strong and the nested structures are explained, but the absence of an output schema and annotations leaves gaps: no description of the returned data shape, no clarity on whether queries are read-only, and the limit maximum value is unspecified. These are meaningful gaps for a 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 0%, so parameter documentation falls entirely on the description. It provides concrete formats and examples for all six parameters, including nested join/filter structures and the special between-operator syntax, fully compensating for the schema's silence.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Execute custom queries... on F1 data tables.' It also names the key capabilities (joins and filters) that set it apart from sibling tools like list_tables and get_sample_data, making its role unambiguous.

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 explains how to use the tool through its args list, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the siblings or when it is not appropriate. Usage is implied ('custom queries'), with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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