read_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by SELECT-only), has security constraints (no destructive SQL), and targets MSSQL Database. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, result format, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a security constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a simple query tool. It covers the purpose and basic constraints but lacks details on return values, error cases, or advanced usage, which could be critical for an AI agent to handle effectively in a database context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'query' parameter thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating the SELECT and non-destructive constraints, but does not provide additional syntax, format, or usage nuances. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Executes a SELECT query') and target resource ('on an MSSQL Database table'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_table or insert_data. It precisely defines the tool's function without being vague or tautological.

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 (for SELECT queries only) and implicitly excludes destructive operations, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like list_table for metadata queries or when not to use it versus other read operations. It offers solid guidance but lacks explicit sibling comparisons.

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