db_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only, allows only specific SQL statement types, and is single-statement. It also hints at the binding syntax. It does not specify error handling or permissions, but the core behavioral trait (read-only) is well communicated.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraints. Every sentence is informative and earns its place. No wasted words.

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 (direct SQL execution), the description covers the query types allowed, database target, parameter binding, and the escape hatch role. It does not describe the return format (e.g., rows as JSON), which might be assumed. Overall, it is largely complete for the usage context.

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 coverage is 100% (3 parameters described), so baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining that parameters are passed as $1,$2,… bind values, which clarifies usage beyond the schema's type definitions. This is a meaningful addition for an AI agent.

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 runs read-only SQL queries (SELECT/WITH/EXPLAIN/SHOW only) against a specific database. It uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource term ('SQL query'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being an 'escape hatch' for queries not covered by curated 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 explicitly positions the tool as an 'escape hatch' for cases not covered by other tools, providing good context. It also restricts usage to read-only queries. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or name specific alternatives, though the sibling list implies the alternatives.

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