execute_query

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions execution against Azure SQL but does not address potential side effects (data modification, schema changes), performance impact, required permissions, or error states. This is insufficient for a tool that can alter data.

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?

Extremely concise (two sentences) with front-loaded purpose. Every word earns its place given the single parameter. However, the brevity sacrifices important behavioral context, making it feel under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 complexity (arbitrary SQL execution) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover allowed operations, query safety, or connections to sibling tools. The existence of an output schema justifies no return-value explanations, but other gaps remain critical.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning. It provides an example query and states the parameter is a SQL query. This clarifies the parameter's intent beyond the raw schema, but lacks details on syntax rules, limits, or escape characters. Barely meets minimal expectations.

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 tool's action ('Execute a SQL query') and target resource ('Azure SQL database'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (check_database_config, get_tables, etc.) by its verb and scope. However, it doesn't specify allowed query types (e.g., SELECT only, DDL, DML), which could cause agent confusion.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_sample_data or get_table_schema. Missing exclusions such as 'do not use for schema inspection' or warnings about destructive queries. The example suggests a SELECT, but the description does not restrict usage.

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