Run read-only SQL

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is largely covered. The description adds genuinely non-duplicative behavior: a hard 200-row return cap, JSON output, and an enumerated rejection list (DDL/DML, PL/SQL, DB links, DBMS_/UTL_) that the annotations do not convey. It stops short of covering errors, timeouts, or multi-statement handling.

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, zero filler, with the core action and result limit front-loaded before the constraint list. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 two-parameter read-only query tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation scope, the dangerous/rejected cases, the return format, and the size ceiling. Nothing essential to calling it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's restatement of the 200-row maximum and the single-statement constraint adds no syntax or format meaning beyond those schema descriptions, so the baseline 3 applies.

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) plus the exact resource class (a single Oracle SELECT/WITH statement) and the result contract (at most 200 rows as JSON). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like run_report, list_tables, and describe_table, which are report/catalog oriented 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 explicit when-not guidance: data-changing statements, PL/SQL, DB links and DBMS_/UTL_ packages are rejected, which tells the agent when this tool will fail. It does not, however, say when to prefer run_report over run_query or mention any other alternative, so the routing guidance is one-sided.

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