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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether arbitrary SQL includes writes/DDL, permission requirements, supported SQL dialect, rate limits, or error behavior. It only states that results are returned as a pretty-printed grid, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a potentially powerful SQL execution tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and return format without any filler. Every phrase contributes useful 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?

The description explains what the tool does and that it returns a grid, but for an arbitrary SQL tool with no annotations and no output schema, it omits critical context such as read-only versus mutation behavior, SQL dialect, and safety constraints. An agent can invoke it, but cannot confidently predict its side effects.

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%, and the single required `sql` parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds context that queries run against registered tables and that joins work, but does not add SQL syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run an arbitrary SQL query against the registered tables.' It also clarifies capability by noting joins across tables/sheets work and that it returns a result grid. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_schema or list_tables, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_schema, column_statistics, or export_result. The only alternative mention is in the parameter schema ('use list_tables for the available table names'), which is about parameter usage, not tool selection.

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