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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description stays consistent with that while adding genuinely new information: calls are logged with time, hashed IP, client, tool, arguments, and purpose, and all data is synthetic. The logging disclosure is exactly the kind of behavior annotations cannot convey, though the result format and row-limit behavior are not described.

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 capability is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by logging disclosure and a docs link. It is compact, but the "Nothing is executed" clause is ambiguous enough to cost clarity rather than save space.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry more of the return-shape burden, and it never says what columns 'customers' contains or what a result looks like. For a SQL tool, the missing table schema is a real obstacle to writing a correct query, even though the logging and synthetic-data disclosures are solid.

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%, and the schema already documents both 'sql' and 'purpose', including that purpose is logged for research. The description adds the research-logging context but no new syntax guidance, length limits, or dialect hints for the SQL string, so it sits at the baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Run a read-only SQL query") and narrows scope to a single synthetic table, 'customers'. It is clearly distinguishable from execute_script and fetch_url, though it never names those siblings as 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?

Usage is implied: query the 'customers' sample table when you need structured data rather than fetching a URL or running a script. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement, and the phrase "Nothing is executed" muddies whether the query actually runs, which an agent could misread as a no-op.

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