run_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It declares the tool is read-only, mentions return format, and highlights Firebird-specific syntax. However, it doesn't detail error handling, auth requirements, or performance implications. Adequate 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?

Concise (about 100 words) and well-structured: starts with purpose, then usage guidance, then Firebird specifics. Every sentence provides useful information without 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, return format, SQL dialect, row limiting, and prerequisite knowledge. Missing error behavior but acceptable.

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 100%, but description adds meaningful usage tips: e.g., for maxRows 'Raise only when you genuinely need more rows' and for columns 'Use to reduce output on wide tables'. Adds value beyond schema.

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 executes 'a read-only SELECT query' and returns results as row objects. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like execute_dml, execute_ddl, and sample_table.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: suggest using describe_table or inspect_table when unsure about schema, warns about Firebird SQL differences, and recommends row limiting techniques. Lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' but context signals differentiate siblings.

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