analyze_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it does NOT read business rows and it validates permissions/types, telling the agent this is a structural check rather than a data read.

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?

A single front-loaded clause stating the validation scope, the return value, and the negative constraint. Every element earns its place with zero filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description at least states that a query-structure summary is returned. For a read-only validator with a self-describing nested query schema, this is largely sufficient, though the contents of the summary could be clearer.

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 60% - connection, database and schema carry good inline descriptions, but the large nested query object and timeout_ms are undocumented. The description adds nothing about individual parameters, so it relies on the schema; baseline 3 fits the moderate coverage.

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 names a specific verb (校验/validate) and resource (结构化查询 - structured query), plus the scope of validation (tables, fields, permissions, types) and what it returns (查询结构摘要). The tagline '不读取业务行' sharpens it against siblings like execute_query, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: validating a query without reading rows suggests a pre-execution check, but the description never states when to reach for this vs explain_query or execute_query, nor any prerequisites. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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