pg_execute_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it mentions the tool executes queries with parameters and examples, it lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't disclose safety limits (though 'limit' parameter exists in schema), authentication needs (connectionString handling), error handling, or return format. The description adds minimal value beyond basic operation explanation.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The example adds practical value without being verbose. However, the second sentence could be slightly more structured, and there's some redundancy between the operation explanation and the example.

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?

Given the complexity of a database query tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return formats, error conditions, connection handling, or safety implications despite the 'limit' parameter suggesting row limiting behavior. For a tool with this level of complexity, more contextual information is needed.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining the 'operation' parameter with examples ('operation="select", query="SELECT * FROM users..."'), but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already documents for other parameters like 'limit' or 'timeout'.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Execute SELECT queries and data retrieval operations') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'pg_execute_mutation' by emphasizing read-only operations. It explicitly mentions the supported operations (select/count/exists) and provides concrete examples.

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?

The description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Execute SELECT queries and data retrieval operations') and implies when not to use it (for mutations, which would be handled by 'pg_execute_mutation'). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria beyond the operation types.

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