query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that the tool is read-only ('READ-ONLY by default'), specifies the type of SQL allowed ('SELECT statements only'), and describes the return format ('rows, columns, and metadata'). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like query timeout, result size limits, or authentication requirements.

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 perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement, important behavioral context, and parameter/return documentation in separate labeled sections. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 single-parameter read-only query tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides excellent context: purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral constraints, parameter meaning, and return format. The main gap is lack of output schema documentation, but the description compensates well by describing return values. Slightly more detail on potential limitations would make it complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description compensates by explaining the 'sql' parameter meaning ('SQL query to execute') and adding the critical constraint 'SELECT statements only' that isn't in the schema. This provides essential semantic context beyond the bare schema, though it could specify format expectations or examples.

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 verb ('Execute') and resource ('SQL query against the PostgreSQL database'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'execute' for write operations and 'explain_query' for analysis. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'READ-ONLY by default' and 'Use the 'execute' tool for write operations.' It clearly distinguishes between read (SELECT) and write operations, naming the specific alternative tool for different use cases.

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