sql_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states 'read-only' and 'SELECT', which implies mutation is not allowed, and notes that tables are 'staged in-memory', indicating data persistence/availability constraints. It does not cover error handling or SQL dialect limitations, but these are partially covered by the schema and output schema.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and scope. It contains no fluff and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and constraints.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the essential context: read-only SQL execution against staged in-memory DuckDB tables. An output schema exists, so return values are handled separately. It could be more complete by explicitly listing prerequisites (e.g., tables must be staged) or limitations, but the phrase 'staged in-memory' implies this effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'query' parameter, including a concrete example. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics 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 action ('Execute'), the specific operation ('read-only SQL SELECT query'), and the target resource ('staged in-memory DuckDB tables'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like query_dataset or get_dimension_values by specifying raw SQL execution against staged tables.

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 context: it is for running SQL SELECT queries against staged DuckDB tables. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like query_dataset, nor does it state exclusions (e.g., non-SELECT queries or tables that are not staged). The context is clear but not explicit.

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