MCP Oracle Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'execute a SELECT query' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't explicitly state this, nor does it mention potential risks (e.g., performance impact, data exposure), authentication requirements, or result limitations. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Spanish that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential 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?

For a database query execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (result sets, error formats), performance considerations, security constraints, or how it differs from sibling tools. The description leaves critical contextual gaps for proper tool selection and use.

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 the single 'query' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (it just restates that it's a SELECT query). 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 action ('execute') and resource ('SELECT query on Oracle database'), providing specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'describe_table' or 'list_tables', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'describe_table' or 'list_tables'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate contexts for executing SELECT queries versus using the sibling tools.

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