sql_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses read-only enforcement, push-down execution, SQL syntax translation via sqlglot, blocked statement types, and default row limit. This is unusually transparent for a tool with no annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, followed by essential behavioral constraints and parameter notes. Every line adds information, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 SQL execution tool, the description covers the operation, safety constraints, syntax model, output formats, and default limit. It does not explain the `connection` parameter or error behavior, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Overall, it is nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains format (markdown/json/csv) and limit (0 = default 200), adding real value beyond the schema. However, it omits any explanation of the `connection` parameter, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 identifies the action (executes SQL query) and resource (read-only query against source DB), with a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like query_explain or generate_sql, but the read-only execution purpose is unambiguous.

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 appropriate use: running read-only SQL with push-down execution and automatic dialect translation. It states that INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE/DROP are blocked, providing an implicit exclusion, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over its siblings or mention alternatives.

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