run_sql

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the most important trait — read-only execution — but says nothing about result-size limits, timeouts, whether writes/DDL are rejected, or what happens on error.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the read-only constraint and the prerequisite front-loaded before any detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the read-only contract plus the get_schema prerequisite cover the essentials for a one-parameter tool. Only query-dialect and execution-limit context is missing.

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 0% and the single 'query' parameter has no description, so the schema adds nothing. The description partially compensates by implying the target database and that only read-oriented SQL is valid, but gives no syntax, dialect, or dialect-specific constraints.

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+resource ('SQL against the vitals db') and constrains the operation to read-only, which cleanly separates it from the predefined getters like get_daily and get_heart_rate. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

'Use get_schema first' gives a concrete prerequisite and names a sibling tool by name, which is real routing guidance. It stops short of saying when to prefer run_sql over the fixed query tools (get_daily, get_workouts), so no explicit when/when-not distinction.

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