execute_sql_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits like PostgreSQL case-sensitivity requirements and quoting conventions, but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, transaction behavior, or what happens with invalid queries. The description adds meaningful context but leaves gaps for a mutation tool.

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 with clear sections (Args, Returns, Notes) and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the PostgreSQL-specific notes might be overly detailed for a general SQL execution tool. The example query is helpful but slightly lengthens the description.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with output schema present, the description does well. It covers purpose, parameters, return type, and important behavioral notes. The main gap is lack of guidance on error handling or security implications for a raw SQL 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains all three parameters: database_id identifies the target, native_query contains the SQL, and parameters are optional query parameters. The description adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could specify parameter format or types more explicitly.

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 specific action ('Execute a native SQL query') and resource ('through Metabase'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which focus on CRUD operations for Metabase objects rather than direct SQL execution. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (executing SQL queries on Metabase databases) and includes specific notes about PostgreSQL case-sensitivity. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like the 'get_card_query_results' sibling tool for pre-defined queries.

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