query_database

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the query must be a single read-only SELECT and values must be bound via ? placeholders rather than inlined. It does not mention row capping behavior or error/failure semantics.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the core constraint (read-only SELECT) plus the binding convention are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 database query tool with no output schema, the description covers the statement type and parameter binding but omits the result-size cap (max_rows default 100, max 200) and any note on error behavior, leaving an agent to discover truncation at runtime.

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 carries the burden. It does explain the relationship between sql_query and parameters (the ? placeholder convention), which is valuable, but it never mentions max_rows or its default of 100 / cap of 200.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Execute one read-only SELECT query' — which is unambiguous and clearly distinguished from the write-oriented task siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the related 'database_schema' sibling, which an agent must infer from the name alone.

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 phrase 'one read-only SELECT query' implies when this tool applies (single read statements only, no writes/DDL) and 'Use ? placeholders and parameters for values' gives a calling convention. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over database_schema or what to do for non-SELECT needs.

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