claude-database-tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about security restrictions (no destructive SQL operations) and query requirements (must start with SELECT), but it does not cover other behavioral traits like error handling, performance limits, or output format. The description does not contradict any annotations.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded and zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds essential security and usage constraints, making it efficient and well-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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and basic constraints, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on return values, error conditions, or advanced usage. It is complete enough for basic use but not fully comprehensive.

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 single parameter 'query' with its constraints and an example. The description adds minimal value by restating the same constraints (must start with SELECT, no destructive operations), but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 resource ('on an MSSQL Database table'), distinguishing it from siblings like insert_data, update_data, or delete_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) and implicitly excludes destructive operations, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when-not scenarios. It helps differentiate from siblings like execute_stored_proc or list_tables, though it lacks explicit guidance on choosing between similar read-only tools.

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