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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the returned fields (name, description, type, SQL, url) and explaining the 'type' values ('raw' SQL or 'builder'), which helps the agent anticipate the response shape.

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 the core purpose, followed by return details and link format. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers what the tool does, how to obtain the required id from a link, and what the response contains. No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing return fields.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by giving the full link pattern /explore/:databaseId/:tableId/:queryId and noting that :tableId is 'raw_query' for raw SQL queries, which contextualizes why databaseId is needed.

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 ('Get') and resource ('details of a saved query by its id'), and clarifies the return fields. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from (e.g., list_saved_queries), but the 'by its id' scoping makes the individual-vs-list distinction reasonably clear.

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?

Provides a use case example ('for example to resolve a query link'), which implies when to use it, but offers no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives. The intended usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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