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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint/idempotentHint), disclosing a hard 100-row SELECT cap, the pagination mechanism (LIMIT/OFFSET/ORDER BY inside the SQL string), rejection of writes, and a non-obvious schema constraint (cards have no deck_id, decks are tag filters). This is exactly the operational detail an agent needs to query correctly.

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?

Three dense sentences that front-load the core identity (read-only SQL over Nibomo) before details. No filler, though the middle sentence packs four topics (allowed statements, write rejection, deck semantics, card schema) into one line, making it slightly run-on.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be explained. The description covers dialect scope, allowed statement classes, write rejection, row limits, pagination, and schema gotchas, leaving nothing material missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 both sql and workspaceId are already documented in the input schema. The description adds the notion that reads are workspace-scoped and names the SHOW TABLES/DESCRIBE/SELECT statement forms, but adds no syntax or fallback detail (e.g., default selection behavior) beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 (Queries) and resource (Nibomo API with read-only SQL dialect), and explicitly negates full PostgreSQL. The 'rejects writes' clause distinguishes it from the sibling sql_execute, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context: read-scoped statements (SHOW TABLES, DESCRIBE, SHOW COLUMNS FROM, SELECT) and the rejection of writes, which implies sql_execute is the write-path alternative. However, it never names that sibling or states an explicit when-not-to-use rule, so routing still requires inference.

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