mdb_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but covers only connection-mode behavior. It never states whether DDL/DML (DROP, DELETE, UPDATE) is permitted or flagged, whether results are transactional, or how errors surface — material gaps for a raw SQL executor.

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, front-loaded with the core action before the connection caveats. The numbered connection list is slightly dense but every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description says nothing about return shape or error behavior for an arbitrary SQL tool. Connection semantics are complete, but an agent still lacks the mutation-safety and result-format context this complexity warrants.

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%, so the schema already documents query, database, and limit (including truncation). The description only re-frames the database parameter's routing rule, adding little beyond structured data; baseline 3 applies.

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 SQL against MonetDB) and immediately scopes it by connection mode, referencing mdb_connect and mdb_list_databases. It does not, however, distinguish itself from mdb_explain, which is the closest sibling for executing SQL-flavored statements.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: omit database when a dynamic session is active, pass database="label" for a config label, and call mdb_list_databases first if unsure. No when-not guidance (e.g. when to prefer mdb_explain or mdb_health_check) is offered.

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