Execute Safe Read-Only Query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by stating that write/mutation queries are actively blocked and naming the permitted statement classes. It stops short of disclosing return shape, row-limit enforcement, or what happens when a blocked query is attempted.

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, zero padding, with the operation stated first and the safety constraint immediately after. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 five-parameter query tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description says enough to call it correctly, and the sibling set covers schema discovery. Minor gaps: no mention of pagination behavior or what a blocked query returns, though the schema mitigates the first.

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%, with limit, offset, format, and db_path all documented inline, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description contributes no additional parameter detail beyond the general 'read-only SQL query' framing, making baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Execute a read-only SQL query... on SQLite') and enumerates the accepted statement types (SELECT, WITH, PRAGMA info), so the agent knows exactly what the tool performs. It does not explicitly position itself against siblings like sqlite_explain_query or sqlite_summarize_database, leaving that differentiation to the names.

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 implies the usage context (ad-hoc read queries against a SQLite database) and makes clear that mutations are blocked, but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the sibling tools. An agent must infer that this is the fallback for queries the specialized tools don't cover.

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