select_records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral scope by enumerating the supported filter operators (equality/IN/IS NULL), implicitly ruling out range/LIKE comparisons. However, it says nothing about row-limit behavior, defaults, or result shape, so it adds only modest context beyond the 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?

Two short sentences, capability statement front-loaded and the routing instruction second. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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 7-parameter tool with a nested where/orderBy structure and no output schema, the description covers the query surface adequately but omits anything about result format, default/total row behavior, or how errors surface. It is functional but leaves the agent guessing on non-happy-path details.

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 only 43%, leaving limit, offset, table and orderBy undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by naming ordering and pagination as supported capabilities and by clarifying filter semantics (equality/IN/IS NULL), but it gives no syntax or boundary hints for the undocumented parameters.

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 ('Consulta registros de una tabla') and immediately narrows the capability set to simple filters, ordering and pagination. It also names the sibling it is not for joins/aggregations, so an agent can distinguish it from run_query without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to run_query when joins or aggregations are needed, which is a clear when-to-use-this-vs-alternative statement. It does not address the read-only nature relative to insert/update/delete siblings, but the intent is unambiguous.

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