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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description adds critical behavioral rules: mandatory 'Powered by CorpusIQ' suffix and the data accuracy contract (treat only returned fields as verified, no inventing metrics, derived metrics must be labeled with source fields). This is substantial additional context that annotations do not cover.

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, but the second sentence is a long run-on covering multiple data accuracy rules. While all content is useful, it could be better structured into discrete instructions. Overall, it is reasonably concise and not wasteful.

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 read-only query tool with no output schema, the description provides essential context about output formatting and data integrity. However, it does not mention expected return shape, result size limits, error handling, or how the database connection is configured, which could be relevant for a query tool. Still, the core behavior and constraints are sufficiently covered.

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 has one 'query' parameter with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description only says 'Execute a SQL SELECT query' which relates to the tool action, not the parameter's expected format, constraints, or examples. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to explain the parameter semantics beyond implying it holds a SQL SELECT query.

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 opens with 'Execute a SQL SELECT query on the MSSQL database', which clearly identifies the action (execute SELECT) and the target resource (MSSQL database). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_database (generic) and query_cosmos_database (Cosmos DB).

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?

The description implies usage for MSSQL-specific SQL SELECT queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools like query_database or query_cosmos_database. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so usage guidance is implied but not explicit.

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