db_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It mentions 'proper error handling' but doesn't disclose key behaviors: whether the query is read-only or allows mutations (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE), whether there are safety restrictions, connection requirements, or limitations. The mention of 'proper error handling' is a promise, not a disclosure of actual behavior.

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 two sentences with zero waste. Every word contributes. It's appropriately brief for a single-parameter tool, though the content could be more substantive.

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 tool executing raw database queries, the description is notably incomplete. No output schema exists, so the description should explain what the tool returns (rows, affected counts, errors). No behavioral annotations exist. The description doesn't mention query type restrictions, timeout behavior, or whether it supports reads, writes, or both. Given the sensitivity of raw SQL execution tools, significantly more context is warranted.

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% for the single 'query' parameter, and the description adds the 'standardized query execution with proper error handling' context. However, the description doesn't clarify query syntax expectations, whether parameterized/placeholders are supported, read vs. write statements, or any constraints on query format. It's a marginal incremental improvement over 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 states it executes a database query workflow using Database MCP, which is a specific verb+resource pairing. However, it's vague about what kind of queries are supported, what 'standardized query execution' means, and doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings (which are mostly feature/test tools, making some distinction implicit). The purpose is generally clear but under-specified.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 22 sibling tools including generate_tickets, implement_feature, and other unrelated functions, the description doesn't clarify which database scenarios this handles vs. excludes. No examples, no conditions, no alternatives mentioned.

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