read_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: read-only nature, auto-limiting results, and blocking destructive operations. This provides important context beyond the schema, though it omits details like return format or permissions.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value ('read-only', 'auto-limits', 'blocks destructive'). Highly efficient.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, behavioral constraints, and an important feature (auto-limiting). It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the response format (e.g., rows), but overall sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters; the schema already documents each parameter's purpose and constraints. The description's value is in global behaviors, not parameter-specific details.

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 read-only SELECT query, specifying the verb 'execute' and resource 'SELECT query'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing 'read-only' and 'blocks destructive operations', which differentiates it from tools like 'run_script' or 'explain_query'.

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 usage for read-only queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'describe_table' or 'list_tables'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, only the inherent constraint of SELECT queries.

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