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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool executes a query and returns JSON results, but lacks critical details such as execution timeouts, error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 well-structured and concise, with no wasted words. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a labeled 'Args' section with a bullet point for the single parameter. Each sentence adds value, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (executing SQL queries with potential side effects) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but misses behavioral details like error responses, performance considerations, or output structure, which are important for a query execution tool.

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 adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that the 'query' parameter is 'The SQL query to execute via Steampipe' and provides an example, clarifying that it must be 'valid Steampipe SQL.' This compensates well for the schema's lack of detail, though it doesn't cover all potential edge cases.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Executes a SQL query using the Steampipe CLI and returns the results as a JSON string.' It specifies the verb ('executes'), resource ('SQL query'), and output format ('JSON string'). However, with no sibling tools mentioned, there's no explicit differentiation from alternatives, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides minimal usage guidance. It includes an example query but does not specify when to use this tool versus other methods (e.g., direct database access or other query tools). There is no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases beyond the basic example.

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