SQL query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: single statement, SQLite dialect, and a hard 200-row cap that will silently truncate results. It does not say how write attempts or syntax errors are surfaced, which matters for an agent iterating on queries.

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 sentences, no filler, and the operational constraint is front-loaded before the prerequisite. Every clause earns 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?

For a one-parameter escape-hatch tool with no output schema, the definition covers dialect, safety, row cap and the prerequisite discovery step. The remaining gap is return-shape detail (column naming, null handling, truncation signaling) and error behavior.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It contributes the dialect (SQLite), the allowed statement class (SELECT only), and the row limit, but says nothing about whether table/column names are case-sensitive or how results are ordered. Partial compensation only.

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 and resource ('Run one read-only SQLite SELECT against the database') plus concrete scope limits (single statement, max 200 rows). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which are all pre-built reports/query wrappers rather than free-form SQL.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite — 'Call describe_data first for tables, units and conventions' — which is exactly the guidance an agent needs before writing SQL against an unknown schema. It stops short of naming when to prefer the canned siblings (get_weekly_summary, get_trend) over raw SQL, so the alternative-selection rule is left implicit.

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