Query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important safety trait — read-only, SELECT statements only — which is real value beyond the schema, but it omits anything about result-size limits, timeouts, required privileges, or cost of arbitrary queries.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, and the core capability plus its constraint are front-loaded ahead of the routing hint. Nothing is redundant with structured fields.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the read-only constraint is stated. What is missing is disambiguation from the 'run_sql' sibling and any note on query limits or error behavior — meaningful gaps for a tool whose only input is free-form SQL.

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?

There is a single 'sql' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'Only SELECT statements allowed' adds a genuine constraint on that parameter's content, but it offers no dialect, table/column naming, or formatting guidance the agent would need to write a working query.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Execute a read-only SQL query') with the key constraint (SELECT only). It partially differentiates via 'custom queries not covered by other tools', but it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling 'run_sql', leaving an obvious ambiguity unresolved.

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?

'Use this for custom queries not covered by other tools' gives implied usage context, pointing the agent away from the purpose-built getters. However, it gives no when-not guidance and ignores the fact that a sibling named 'run_sql' appears to do the same thing, so the routing decision is left ambiguous.

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