database_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation. It never states whether queries can write or delete data, whether results are returned, whether multi-statement SQL is allowed, or whether there are side effects and guardrails.

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 short and readable, but it is under-specified rather than deliberately concise. The single sentence essentially rewraps the tool name and leaves out important safety and usage context that should be present.

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 tool that executes arbitrary SQL, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent would have to guess what the tool returns, whether the query may mutate data, and what precautions are needed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the query and database parameters. The description adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a clear action (execute) and resource (SQL query against the application database), so an agent can identify what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast with execute_code or other siblings, but 'SQL query' makes the domain 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?

It gives no indication of when to choose database_query over execute_code or other alternatives, nor any conditions or constraints such as read-only usage, database selection behavior, or safe query patterns. Usage context must be inferred from the name and name alone.

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