json_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the expression syntax and a commercial note ('3 free trials'), but does not state whether it is read-only, what it returns for matches versus no match, how wildcard results are shaped, or how invalid JSON is handled.

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 core function is stated in one front-loaded sentence with no filler. The trailing '[PRO - 3 free trials]' is promotional noise rather than useful operational detail, which keeps it from a 5.

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 schema fully documents the two required parameters, and the description covers the query syntax, making basic invocation possible. Missing context includes return format, behavior on nil/empty results, and error handling, which an agent may need for reliable use — especially because no output schema exists.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds only minimal meaning beyond the schema: the schema already documents dot-path syntax, wildcards, and array indices. The description's value is mostly restating what an agent can read in the query parameter description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('JSON data'), and clarifies the mechanism (dot-path expressions with nested keys, array indices, and wildcard expansion). This distinguishes it from nearby siblings like json_format and json_diff, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 the tool is for extracting or projecting values from JSON, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't mention alternatives such as json_format, json_diff, or yaml_convert, leaving the agent to infer selection from the name and syntax alone.

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