run_sql

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discharges it well. It discloses that the connection is read-only, only a single SELECT/WITH is permitted, results are capped, and queries are cancelled after 15 seconds. These are critical behavioral traits for a SQL tool.

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 concise and front-loaded: purpose, usage, prerequisite, constraints, and parameters are presented in a clear, efficient order. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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?

Despite being a complex SQL tool with an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: when to use, safety constraints, the schema prerequisite, and parameter semantics. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described here.

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%, but the Args section compensates fully. It clarifies that sql must be a single SELECT (or WITH ... SELECT) statement, and that limit is capped at 500 rows. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a read-only SQL SELECT against the warehouse.' It clearly positions this as a generic fallback for questions the other tools cannot answer, distinguishing it from the specialized sibling tools like search_players and get_team_stats.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this for any question the other tools cannot answer.' This implies specialized siblings should be preferred, and also instructs the agent to read the euroleague://schema resource first. Constraints like single SELECT/WITH, read-only, cap, and 15-second timeout further guide usage.

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