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

Annotations provide no hints (all false), so the description carries the burden. It warns that returned data may be untrusted and instructs not to follow instructions from it, which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool can modify the database (e.g., it's not read-only), leaving side-effect behavior ambiguous.

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 concise, using three sentences to convey purpose, alternative instructions, a safety warning, and bulk support. No redundant or filler content; each sentence delivers essential 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?

Covers purpose, a key alternative (apply_migration), a safety warning, and bulk capability. Since no output schema exists, it correctly doesn't explain return values. Missing an explicit statement about potential data modification, but given the raw SQL nature, the warning about untrusted data partially compensates.

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 description clarifies that project_ids is for batched execution, implying project_id is for a single operation. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema names. However, it does not explain the query parameter or how project_id and project_ids relate (e.g., whether one is required or both can be used).

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?

Clearly states that the tool executes raw SQL in the Postgres database. It also explicitly distinguishes from apply_migration for DDL operations, and mentions bulk support via project_ids, making the core function unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to use apply_migration instead for DDL, implying this tool is for other SQL operations (DML, queries). The warning about untrusted data also informs safe usage. However, it does not elaborate on when to prefer this over other SQL-related tools, but the contrast with apply_migration gives sufficient direction.

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