run_query

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is free. The description adds genuinely new behavior: statement-type enforcement, the 1–1000 limit bound, and the truncation contract with `truncated`. It does not state what happens to a rejected non-SELECT statement (error vs. empty result).

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading what the tool is before the constraints and the truncation fallback. Nothing repeats structured fields.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this covers everything an agent needs: input contract, dialect, limit bounds, and truncation semantics. Return shape is delegated correctly to the output schema.

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 carry both parameters — and it largely does, specifying the SQLite dialect, the accepted statement forms for `sql`, and the 1–1000 range for `limit`. The default of 100 exists only in the schema and is never restated in prose.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Run one read-only SQL query (SQLite dialect) and return the rows') with scope qualifiers that make it immediately distinguishable from the schema-inspection siblings. An agent knows exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operating context (read-only, only SELECT/WITH...SELECT accepted) and a recovery path when output is truncated ('narrow the query or aggregate instead'). It never names the sibling tools, however, so the choice between run_query, sample_rows, or list_tables is left to inference.

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