validate_sql

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses what the tool checks (ORDER BY, CTE, MERGE, variables, temp tables, unsupported functions) and that it optionally validates Data Extensions and target schema. It states it returns blocking errors, warnings, and suggestions. However, it doesn't mention read-only behavior or rate limits, but for a validation tool the transparency is good.

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, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains what the tool returns (errors, warnings, suggestions). Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, validation focus), the description covers the essential behavioral aspects. Could mention if it modifies anything, but likely not 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% (all three parameters have descriptions). The tool's description adds value by setting context (e.g., highlighting that checkSchema controls DE validation), but it doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs ('Valida', 'Checa', 'confere') and specifies the resource ('Query Activity do SFMC Automation Studio'). It clearly lists what is checked (unsupported constructs, existence of DEs and columns) and what is returned (errors, warnings, suggestions), distinguishing it from siblings like list_data_extensions and query_data_extension.

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 clearly states when to use this tool ('antes de executá-la' - before executing a query). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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