execute_read_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool is read-only (safety profile), automatically validated (prevents invalid queries), and row-limited (capping result size). These are valuable behavioral traits beyond what the schema or tool name conveys. It does not discuss authorization or error handling, but the disclosed traits are sufficient for safe usage.

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 wasted words. It communicates the core purpose and two important constraints in a compact form, fitting the criteria for ideal conciseness.

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 tool with one simple string parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it specifies the operation type, the query language, and safety limits. It does not explicitly state the return type (query results), but that is implied by 'SELECT query'. The absence of explicit return details is a minor gap, but overall the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single parameter 'sqlQuery' as a 'T-SQL SELECT query to execute' (100% coverage). The description adds that the query is read-only and row-limited, which sets execution constraints, but it does not add new formatting or syntax details about the parameter itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Execute' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'read-only SQL SELECT query', with additional scoping details ('automatically validated and row-limited'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on metadata, analysis, or maintenance rather than direct query execution.

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 tool's purpose is contextually clear: it is for running read-only SELECT queries safely. It implies use for ad-hoc data retrieval without data modification, but it does not explicitly mention exclusions or name alternative tools for write operations or other query types. This is clear context without explicit when-not guidance.

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