execute_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It goes beyond the basic operation by disclosing that execution happens inside a READ ONLY transaction, that multiple SELECTs return every result set, and that SSH tunnels open automatically. These are meaningful behavioral traits not visible in the schema, though it omits error behavior and permission requirements.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the core purpose first, then adds the most important behavioral quirks (multiple result sets and SSH tunnel behavior) without redundancy.

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 execution tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational context: read-only transaction, multi-statement result behavior, and automatic SSH tunneling. Parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema. The only minor gap is not clarifying behavior for non-SELECT statements like EXPLAIN/SHOW in multi-statement scenarios, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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%, so the input schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('read-only SQL') and clearly states the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly labeling the operation as read-only, which separates it from write_query and run_script. The extra detail about multiple result sets further sharpens the purpose.

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 clearly establishes the intended use case: running read-only SQL queries. This implicitly tells the agent this is not for writes, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like write_query or explain_query or state exclusion conditions. The read-only marker provides strong contextual guidance, though direct sibling routing is absent.

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