db_query

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

The description discloses that queries run in an immediately-rolled-back transaction and that write statements are blocked both statically and at the transaction level. It also outlines the return structure (rows, row_count, connection, database, truncated). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well.

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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence stating the core purpose, followed by a brief note on transaction behavior and a recommendation to use a sibling tool, then a bullet-style summary of parameters and return value. No superfluous information.

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's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main behavioral aspects (transaction, write blocking), parameter semantics, and return format. It could optionally mention error handling or performance implications, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides comprehensive meaning for all three parameters: sql (SELECT-only), connection (defaults to first defined), and max_rows (default 500, lower for large tables). This goes far beyond the bare schema, which only supplies names and types.

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 rows as a list of dicts. It specifies that write statements are blocked, making the purpose unambiguous. Although not explicitly compared to siblings, the verb-resource combination ('Execute a read-only SELECT query') is specific and distinct.

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?

The description advises to call db_get_schema first if unfamiliar with the table structure, providing a clear alternative. It also implicitly limits usage to read-only queries (SELECT only) and mentions max_rows for large tables. However, it does not explicitly exclude other query types or describe when not to use the tool beyond the SELECT constraint.

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