query_database

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

The description contradicts the annotations: it says 'retrieve data' (implying read-only) while annotations have destructiveHint: true, indicating potential data modification. This is a clear annotation contradiction.

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 short (two sentences), with the first sentence clearly stating the action. The second sentence is somewhat redundant but not harmful.

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 lacks important context: it doesn't mention write capability (despite destructive hint), security requirements, or query validation behavior. No output schema exists, but description could warn about potential data loss.

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% with descriptions for both parameters, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what's already in the schema. Baseline is appropriate.

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 it executes SQL queries on a specified database source, which is specific and different from siblings like 'list_tables' or 'execute_procedure'. However, it only mentions 'retrieve data' despite destructive hints, slightly narrowing the scope.

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 phrase 'Use this to retrieve data' is the only guidance, but it's misleading given the destructive annotation. No comparison to sibling tools or when to use alternatives is provided.

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