db_gateway__query_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does deliver a meaningful behavioral trait: all results are routed through the KVKK/GDPR gateway and sensitive fields are automatically masked. That is genuinely useful output-transformation context the schema cannot convey. It still omits read-only confirmation, failure modes, and whether the gateway can further truncate results.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the one non-obvious behavioral fact. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's masking note usefully pre-empts questions about returned field values, and the schema fully documents the three parameters including the limit cap. Given low tool complexity, this is close to complete, though a note on read-only safety and gateway-imposed limits would fully close the gap.

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%, covering table, filter, and the limit cap, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description's "optional filters" phrasing adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema states, 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 and resource ("Query rows from a database table") plus scope ("with optional filters"), which clearly separates it from read-only metadata siblings like describe_table and list_tables. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer you call this when you need row data from a named table. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. describe_table/list_tables routing, no stated prerequisites (e.g., table must exist, permissions), and no exclusions.

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