execute-query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: read-only mode by default, allowed query types, and result format. However, it doesn't mention important aspects like error handling, execution time limits, authentication requirements, or whether queries are logged/audited. For a SQL execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two main clauses that convey essential information. However, it could be more front-loaded by starting with the core purpose before detailing the read_only parameter behavior. The parenthetical about query types interrupts the flow slightly.

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 SQL execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic context about allowed operations and output format. However, it doesn't address critical aspects like what happens with non-SELECT queries when read_only=true, how results are structured beyond 'markdown format', or error conditions. Given the complexity of SQL execution, more completeness would be expected.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the 'read_only' parameter's effect on query types but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'execute' and resource 'SQL query', specifying the types of queries allowed (SELECT, SHOW, DESCRIBE, EXPLAIN, WITH) and the output format. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute-snowflake-sql' or 'query-view', which appear to be similar query execution tools.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'read-only mode' and listing allowed query types, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'execute-snowflake-sql' or 'query-view'. It mentions the 'read_only' parameter behavior but doesn't clarify when to set it to false versus using other tools.

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