execute_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and 'with safety constraints' is an unelaborated claim — it never says which constraints (multi-statement blocking, write gating, transaction behavior, error shapes). For a tool that can mutate a database, the side effects, reversibility and permission requirements are undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. However, the trailing phrase 'with safety constraints' is vague filler that signals a capability without describing it, so it doesn't fully earn its place.

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?

A mutation-capable, four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to cover safety behavior, write-mode consequences and result shape. None of that is present, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it safely.

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 all four parameters are already documented in structured data, and the description adds no syntax, format or interaction detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (execute) and resource (SQL query) and notes both read-only and read/write modes. It never names a sibling, so an agent must infer that it should not use this for schema inspection (list_tables/describe_table) or plan analysis (explain_query). Clear purpose, but no explicit differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_tables, describe_table or explain_query, and no guidance on when to flip read_only to false. Usage is only implied by the verb. The read_only default is documented in the schema but the description doesn't explain the tradeoff.

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