consultarSQL

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's read-only (solo lectura), restricts queries to SELECT only with rejection of other types, and is used for data retrieval. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like query complexity, timeout risks, or result size constraints, which could be relevant for an agent. No contradiction with annotations exists as none are provided.

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 well-structured with clear sections (PROPÓSITO, RESTRICCIÓN DE SEGURIDAD, USO, EJEMPLO) and uses bullet points effectively. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with each sentence adding value. However, the example 'Muestra todos los clientes registrados' is somewhat redundant with the purpose statement, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 read-only query tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, security restrictions, usage context, and provides an example. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of returned data) and doesn't address potential error conditions or performance considerations, which would enhance completeness for an agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'consulta' documented as 'Consulta SQL tipo SELECT'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only reinforcing that it's a SELECT query. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already provides adequate parameter semantics.

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 explicitly states the purpose as 'Ejecutar una consulta SQL de solo lectura (SELECT) para obtener datos' (Execute a read-only SQL SELECT query to obtain data), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes this tool from its siblings like insertarDatos, crearTabla, eliminarTabla, etc., which are write operations. The purpose is unambiguous and well-defined.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Ideal para obtener datos específicos, filtrar o unir tablas' (Ideal for obtaining specific data, filtering, or joining tables). It also clearly states when NOT to use it by specifying the security restriction that only SELECT queries are allowed, with other types like INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, DROP being rejected. This directly contrasts with sibling tools that handle those operations.

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