execute_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 effectively describes key behaviors: read-only nature, automatic row limiting, and the specific return format. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, performance implications, or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and constraint, the second explains row limiting, and the Args/Returns sections clearly document parameters and output without redundancy. 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?

Given the complexity of a SQL query tool with no annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, constraints, parameters, and detailed return values (with an output schema implied by the Returns section). This provides enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively without needing additional structured data.

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. It adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'query' is explained as a 'SQL SELECT statement to execute', and 'max_rows' is described with its purpose ('overrides default, capped by MSSQL_MAX_ROWS'). This goes beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more detail on query syntax or constraints.

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 specific action ('execute a read-only SQL query'), the resource ('SQL query'), and the scope ('only SELECT statements are allowed'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'call_stored_proc', 'delete_row', 'insert_row', and 'update_row' by explicitly limiting to read-only SELECT operations.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('only SELECT statements are allowed') and when not to use it (implying not for write operations like insert/update/delete, which are handled by sibling tools). It also mentions an alternative ('call_stored_proc') for stored procedures rather than direct queries.

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