base_readQuery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions SQL execution and bind parameters, suggesting some safety, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or allows modifications. The name 'readQuery' implies read-only, but the description does not confirm this or address potential risks.

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 at two sentences plus an Arguments section. It is front-loaded with the primary action. However, the Arguments section is somewhat redundant with the schema, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 tool complexity (executing SQL) and missing output schema require more detail. The description mentions returns include query results and metadata but lacks specifics on result format, pagination, limits, or safety constraints. With one parameter and no nested objects, completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, but the description adds meaningful context: it explains that 'sql' is SQL text with optional bind-parameter placeholders, clarifying the parameter's role beyond the type definition.

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 SQL query via SQLAlchemy, with bind parameters, and returns the rendered SQL in metadata. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like base_tablePreview and base_tableDDL by offering arbitrary SQL 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include specialized query tools, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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