execute_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial context: read-only transaction, account-native read permissions with RLS, dependency security validation, parameter binding, and bounded results. This goes well beyond the annotations, though it does not address rate limits or error behavior.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core action before listing behavioral constraints. It is compact and free of filler, though the comma-separated clause list is somewhat telegraphic.

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?

With no output schema and a deeply nested, complex query parameter, the description covers the execution/safety profile but says nothing about result shape, row limits actually returned, or timeout behavior. For a tool this complex, the return-value picture is incomplete.

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 60% with the four connection/database/schema/query params partly documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the general notion of 参数绑定 and 有界结果 (implying limit behavior) and does not clarify connection/database/schema/timeout semantics, so it is a baseline-adequate contribution.

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?

States a specific verb (执行) and resource (服务端组装的结构化SELECT), which is clear and distinguishes it from catalog siblings. However, it does not explicitly contrast with query-analysis siblings like analyze_query or explain_query, so full sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and the alternatives (analyze_query, explain_query, scan_database, search_catalog) are never referenced. The agent must infer that this is the execution tool versus the analysis tools.

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