run_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 operation is read-only, caps results at 500 rows, sets the 'truncated' flag when exceeded, and aborts queries longer than 5 seconds. This covers safety, limits, and timeout behavior, which is substantial. It does not describe the exact response structure, but an output schema is present to handle that.

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 concise and front-loaded: the core action is stated first, followed by two constraint sentences that are directly actionable. Every sentence adds value (payload limit, truncation handling, timeout), with no fluff or repetition. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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?

The tool has a single parameter, and the description covers key operational aspects: read-only nature, row limit, truncation flag, and timeout. Given an output schema exists (for return format) and the tools is simple, the description is nearly complete. It lacks error-handling details, but those are often covered by the runtime rather than the description. Overall, it adequately equips an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 implies that the 'sql' parameter is the SELECT query to run, but does not explicitly state 'sql contains the query'. For a single parameter named 'sql', this is reasonably inferred. The description adds minimal further semantics beyond the parameter name, but the connection is clear.

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 verb 'Run' and the resource ('read-only SELECT query'), specifying exactly what the tool does. It differentiates itself from siblings like list_tables and describe_table by focusing on arbitrary SELECT queries, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The action and scope are unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does provide practical guidance on handling truncation ('add a LIMIT or aggregate instead') and timeout, which helps the agent use the tool correctly. However, it assumes the agent understands the difference from ping/list_tables/describe_table, providing no explicit selection criteria.

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