run_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'run' and 'return its rows' without stating whether write statements are permitted, what permissions are required, or what occurs for non-SELECT statements. This is a significant gap for a tool that executes arbitrary SQL.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core action and outcome.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool description is underspecified for a tool that can execute arbitrary SQL. It lacks safety warnings, usage context, and parameter nuances. An agent would not know whether this tool might mutate data or how to handle large result sets without additional information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'single SQL statement' implicitly aligns with the 'sql' parameter, but there is no explanation of 'max_rows' or the expected format of the SQL. The description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already shows.

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 uses the specific verb 'run' with the resource 'a single SQL statement against Drill' and states it returns rows. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables and describe_table, which are metadata-oriented.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the tool for arbitrary ad-hoc SQL queries, nor does it warn when it should not be used (e.g., for read-only data exploration vs. potential writes).

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