validate_sql

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

Annotations already indicate it's read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent, but the description adds valuable context by specifying the return format ({valid: bool, error?: string, dialect?: string}), which helps the agent understand the output structure and potential error handling.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential output details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 low complexity, rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and the description's clear purpose and output specification, this is complete enough for an agent to use effectively. No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains the return values.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (sql and dialect). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining validation rules or dialect-specific behaviors, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('SQL syntax'), and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing solely on syntax validation rather than analysis, formatting, linting, parsing, or security scanning.

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 for SQL syntax validation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like lint_sql (which might check for style/best practices) or parse_sql (which might provide structural analysis). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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