✓ SAFE: Execute read-only SQL (SELECT, PRAGMA, EXPLAIN). Supports parameterized queries. Default limit 10,000 rows. Use verbosity="summary" for counts only.

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

With no annotations, the description partially covers behavioral aspects: safety, read-only nature, default row limit, and verbosity option. It does not disclose error handling, connection state requirements, or potential side effects, which is acceptable for a read-only query but not exhaustive.

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, front-loading key details (SAFE, read-only, supported SQL types). Every clause serves a purpose, with no redundancy.

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 output schema exists, so the description should explain return values or behavior. It mentions verbosity for counts but does not describe row output, pagination via offset, or prerequisites like an open database (hinted by sibling open_database). This leaves significant gaps for a 6-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains parameterized queries (params), default limit (limit), and verbosity ('summary' for counts). It omits offset, query, and database_name. This adds value but is incomplete.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 implicitly guides usage by emphasizing read-only operations and mentioning parameterized queries and verbosity. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or provide clear alternatives, though sibling names offer hints.

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