run_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure responsibility. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, describes rejection behavior for non-query statements (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE/DDL), and discloses result capping at limit (max 1000). This fully covers safety and side-effect profile.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause adds essential information about allowed queries, rejection, and result limits. 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?

For a SQL runner with 2 parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers all critical behaviors: allowed query types, rejection, and row cap. It does not need to explain return values (output schema exists) or enumerate every possible query. The description is complete for safe and correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the limit parameter's role in capping results and specifies a maximum (1000), which the schema does not. The sql parameter is self-evident from the description, though not elaborated further. This meaningfully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a read-only SQL query against a specific database (gong-nl-db), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by framing the tool as the direct SQL execution option, while siblings are schema exploration or semantic 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 defines clear usage boundaries: only SELECT, WITH (terminating in SELECT), and set-operation queries are allowed, with a 1000-row cap. It implies this is for read-only analysis, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for other operations (e.g., semantic search). This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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