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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two valuable behaviors: only SELECT/WITH is permitted (implying read-only, no mutation) and results are capped at min(limit, 50000) rows. It omits timeout behavior, error semantics for invalid SQL, permission requirements, and whether all statement types are rejected.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the row-cap detail. It is arguably slightly under-specified rather than bloated, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 SQL execution tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is thin. It never states the dialect, how errors surface, or how to discover the stream/column schema, all of which an agent needs before writing a query.

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 the description must compensate. It explains that `limit` is bounded by a hard cap of 50000 rows via min(limit, 50000), which adds real meaning beyond the default of 10000 in the schema. It also constrains `query` to SELECT/WITH and flags the `day` virtual column, but the SQL dialect and any other supported constructs remain undocumented.

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 class and resource: SELECT/WITH queries executed over the streams. It also reveals a non-obvious domain fact (the virtual `day` column) that identifies what is being queried. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as catalog_streams or get_schema, so it falls short of a 5.

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 and no mention of alternatives. An agent is not told whether to call get_schema or catalog_streams first to discover available streams and columns, nor is there any statement about when this tool is inappropriate (e.g., for metadata inspection).

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