query_readonly

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is read-only, enforces a LIMIT cap of 200, restricts to allow-listed tables, and blocks non-SELECT queries. This is substantial, though it does not cover error behavior or return format.

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 only two sentences, with the core purpose and key restrictions front-loaded. Every sentence adds essential information, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 has a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main usage constraints (read-only, LIMIT, allow-listed tables). It does not explicitly describe the response format or error handling, which could be important for an agent, but for a simple SELECT runner the provided information is fairly complete.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'sql' parameter by explaining it must be a single clean SELECT on allow-listed tables with a LIMIT cap, which is exactly the kind of semantic detail missing from the schema. It does not provide syntax examples, but the constraint knowledge is valuable.

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 executes a SELECT query through a safety guard, and specifies concrete constraints (LIMIT 200, allow-listed tables). This distinguishes it from the sibling describe_schema, which is about schema metadata, not query execution.

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 this tool is for running read-only SELECT queries, but it does not explicitly guide when to use it over describe_schema or mention any alternatives. The blocking of non-SELECT statements gives indirect usage hints, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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