Read Studio database

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: credential columns are redacted to NULL and the response shape varies with query_type. It does not mention error handling for invalid SQL or how the limit interacts with statements that have no LIMIT clause.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then usage modes, then the exclusion, then the return shape. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema and annotations carry the return contract and safety profile, and 100% param coverage means the description needn't document arguments. What is missing is minor but real: no guidance on result truncation when a statement lacks a LIMIT, or on what happens for malformed SQL.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameter descriptions are already explicit, including the 1-500 range and default for limit. The description largely restates the query enum (stats/tables/SELECT/WITH/PRAGMA) without adding syntax, cost, or performance guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Run a read-only query against the Studio SQLite database.' The database name and read-only qualifier distinguish it from the many list_*/get_* catalogue siblings and from query_nexus, which targets a different store. An agent can route to it from the description 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?

Gives concrete entry points (query=stats or query=tables for overviews) and names the accepted statement types, plus an explicit exclusion: 'Do not use this to change data.' It stops short of naming a sibling for writes or explaining when a catalogue list tool is preferable to a raw query, so it is clear but not fully alternative-aware.

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