validate_sql

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

Annotations already indicate this is a safe, idempotent read operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds the return value shape ({valid, error, dialect}) but does not disclose edge-case behaviors (e.g., handling of invalid dialect). This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 sentence with the return type, perfectly concise and front-loaded. No unnecessary 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 simplicity, two well-documented parameters, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It reveals the return shape, which compensates for the missing output schema. However, it omits any mention of error handling or usage context (e.g., 'use for quick syntax checks before execution').

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%: both 'sql' and 'dialect' have descriptions and the latter has an enum. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concisely states 'Validate SQL syntax', which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like lint_sql (style checking) and parse_sql (parsing into AST).

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., analyze_sql for deeper analysis, format_sql for formatting). The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate.

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