execute_select

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 does state the key trait 'somente leitura', which signals no side effects on data. However, it does not mention return format, potential restrictions on query complexity, error behavior, or whether multiple statements are allowed, leaving the agent with only partial behavioral context.

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 a single, concise, and front-loaded sentence. It communicates the core purpose and the read-only constraint with no filler or redundant words. Every word 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 simple tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is largely sufficient: it states the action and the read-only nature. Some gaps remain, such as lack of guidance on output format and differentiation from count_rows and describe_table, but these are minor for such a straightforward tool.

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?

The schema already documents the single 'query' parameter with 100% coverage, describing it as a 'Query SQL SELECT a ser executada'. The tool description essentially repeats this by saying it executes SELECT queries. No additional parameter meaning is added beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: executing a SELECT query, with an explicit 'somente leitura' (read-only) qualifier. This distinguishes it effectively from sibling write operations like insert_data, update_data, and delete_data. The resource ('query SELECT') and the specific verb ('Executa') leave no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage: it is for SELECT queries only, and the read-only qualifier suggests it is not for writes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria. Especially among read-only siblings like list_tables, describe_table, and count_rows, there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over those.

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