query_database

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

The description claims the tool is for retrieving data, but the destructiveHint annotation suggests it can write/modify data. This is a direct contradiction, and no additional behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the annotation.

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 with two sentences, but the second sentence ('Use this to retrieve data') is partly redundant and could be merged or removed. It is minimally concise but not optimally structured.

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 the destructive nature and lack of output schema, the description fails to warn about potential side effects, return format, or how to safely invoke it. Important context is missing for a tool that can modify data.

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 schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (query and source_name). The description adds no extra meaning, so baseline of 3 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 explicitly states it executes a SQL query on a specified database source, which clearly conveys the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like describe_table or execute_procedure, missing the chance to clarify 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 description advises using it to 'retrieve data', but the annotations mark destructiveHint as true, indicating it can also modify data. This is misleading and provides no guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when to avoid.

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