query

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses read-only nature, allowed statement types, row cap with truncated flag, and that queries run across loaded tables. This is thorough and transparent.

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 two sentences: first states purpose, second adds constraints and behaviors. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers parameter usage, allowed/rejected operations, and result cap. For a SQL query tool with one parameter, this is fully complete.

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 0%, so the description compensates fully. It explains that the 'sql' parameter must be a DuckDB dialect query, specifies supported constructs, and warns against writes. This adds significant meaning beyond the string type.

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?

Description clearly states the tool runs read-only SQL queries (DuckDB dialect) on loaded tables. The verb 'run' and resource 'read-only SQL query' are specific, and the distinction from siblings is implied by being the general query tool.

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?

Description explicitly states supported (SELECT, WITH, DESCRIBE, SUMMARIZE, JOINs) and rejected (writes, raw file-access) operations. It lacks explicit comparison to siblings like 'describe' or 'preview', but provides clear boundaries.

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