explain_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool does not run the query, which is key, and outlines return values. However, it does not specify permissions, error conditions, or confirm it is read-only, leaving some gaps.

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 concise and well-structured. The first line gives the core purpose, followed by clearly formatted Args and Returns sections. No unnecessary words, and every sentence adds value.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers all parameters and the return dict structure. Minor omission: possible error cases or preconditions are not addressed, but overall sufficient.

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 0%, so the description compensates fully. Each parameter is described in the Args section: engine_id is an identifier, statement is the SQL with a tip for failure, and engine_type, format, type have enums explained. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Get query execution plan without running the query', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from running actual queries and is actionable. While siblings like 'explain_analyze_query' exist, the purpose of obtaining a plan without execution is clear and unique.

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 a troubleshooting tip for failed queries but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'explain_analyze_query'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, limiting its utility for tool selection.

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