execute_sql_query

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

There are no annotations, and the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits beyond the action itself. It doesn't mention whether the tool supports read-only queries, if there are permissions required, or any limitations on SQL statements. The description adds no transparency beyond the tool's name.

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, direct sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. There is no unnecessary filler or restatement.

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?

While the description is clear, it lacks context about return formats, error behaviors, or how the 'context' parameter affects execution. Since there is no output schema, an agent might not know what to expect in the results. However, the tool is straightforward enough that a lengthier description may not be required.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters, including an example for the 'query' parameter. The description offers no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Execute'), resource ('SQL query against Apache Druid'), and outcome ('return results'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_datasources or test_connection, which serve different purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention, for example, that this is for querying data while list_datasources is for exploring available datasources. The agent must infer use cases.

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