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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the tool title repeats 'Read-Only', so the description's 'read-only' framing adds no new safety information. It also omits practical behaviors an agent would want: row/result limits, timeout, cost, and whether queries can be rejected — no value beyond the structured fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the usage trigger. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or restated boilerplate.

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 read-only tool with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. The main residual gap is that no output schema exists, so the agent gets no hint about result shape or size limits — a minor omission for a generic query executor but one worth noting.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the 'query' argument as a SELECT/WITH…SELECT statement. The description restates that constraint without adding syntax, dialect, or example-level detail, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Execute a read-only SQL SELECT query against the Compabase database'), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It is also clearly distinguishable from the many dedicated get_*/search_* siblings, which retrieve specific entity data rather than arbitrary queries.

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?

'Use when dedicated tools are not enough (aggregations, joins, custom analysis)' gives a clear trigger condition and names the alternative category (dedicated tools). It stops short of an explicit list of which sibling to prefer for which case, but the routing intent is unambiguous.

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