run_sql

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states read-only nature, permitted statement types (SELECT/WITH), time-budget cancellation, and the schema pitfall where wrong join keys return zero rows. These are valuable behavioral insights beyond what the schema or annotations would show.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the overall purpose, listing constraints, and giving usage guidance with alternatives. There is no redundancy or filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 covers critical safety and operational context (read-only, timeout, schema ambiguity) and directs users to specialized tools where appropriate. However, it does not mention the return format or any authorization requirements, which would be useful for a generic SQL tool with no output schema.

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 meaning for the 'sql' parameter by restricting permitted statements and warning about join keys, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or provide examples of valid SQL formatting. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description only partially compensates for the undocumented parameters.

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 'Run a read-only SELECT against the OSCAR database for analysis the other tools do not cover,' which clearly identifies the action, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes this tool from specialized siblings by presenting it as the generic fallback for uncovered analyses.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Call describe_database first' is a clear prerequisite, and 'For mask, mode and other categorical settings prefer get_therapy_settings' names a specific alternative. The phrase 'analysis the other tools do not cover' defines when to choose this tool over others.

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