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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond them by disclosing operational behavior: single statement, 15s timeout, 10,000-row cap, and guaranteed truncation reporting. No contradiction.

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 compact sentences with the core action and constraints first; every clause adds needed information.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the prerequisite, execution constraints, and truncation behavior. There is no output schema, but a SELECT's tabular result is implied; the remaining omission of an explicit return format is minor.

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?

The input schema only names 'query' with no description (0% coverage), so the description must carry the meaning. It does so by specifying that the query is a read-only SQL SELECT against platform data and directs the agent to get_sql_schema for valid relations. It does not provide syntax details, but for a single free-form query string this is reasonable.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Run a read-only SELECT against the platform's data.' It also adds scoping limits (one statement, timeout, row cap), so an agent can distinguish it from the many get_* sibling endpoints, including the prerequisite get_sql_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?

It clearly tells the agent to call get_sql_schema first and restricts usage to a single read-only SELECT, which is a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer run_sql over the dedicated get_* endpoints, so it lacks a full when-not/alternatives statement.

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