explain_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it doesn't say whether the query is actually executed (a key distinction for EXPLAIN variants), whether it is read-only, or what permissions are required. Only the bare operation is stated.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and concise, but the 'Args:' block is boilerplate that duplicates the schema without adding information. Short overall, though the second half earns little.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage leave the agent without guidance on execution side effects, required permissions, or the shape of the returned plan. For a diagnostic tool with a potentially expensive operation, this is a significant gap.

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% and the single parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate—but 'The SQL query to explain' merely restates the parameter name and type. No detail on whether multiple statements, parameters, or DDL/DML queries are accepted.

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+resource: 'Get the execution plan for a SQL query'. An agent can tell it apart from read_query (which runs queries) at a conceptual level, though the description never names a sibling or scope boundary explicitly.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus read_query, get_top_queries, or describe_table, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing schema or permissions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and sibling list.

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