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 explicitly states 'read-only', which is a key behavioral trait indicating the tool will not modify data. This is a strong statement about side effects. It does not mention error handling, transaction behavior, or performance, but for a read-only query tool, the core behavior is well covered.

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 sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by specific use cases. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's role. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool's low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects) and no annotations, the description provides the essential information: what it does and when to use it. The schema covers parameter details. While it could mention output format or restrictions, these are either implicit (SQL query returns rows) or already in the schema (SELECT/WITH). It is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, as both parameters (query and limit) have descriptive text in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing the 'read-only' nature and usage cases. Since the schema already documents the parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate further.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair ('Execute a read-only SQL query against the database') and explicitly lists use cases (analytical aggregations, joins, filtering, CTEs, reporting). It distinguishes itself from siblings list_tables and describe_table, which are clearly metadata-focused, so an agent can readily differentiate it.

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 usage context by stating 'Use this tool for analytical aggregations, joins, filtering, CTEs, and reporting.' This tells the agent when to apply it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state 'when not to use' it, though the sibling tool names imply the distinction. This is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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