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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that only a single SELECT is accepted, and that RBAC, tenant row-level filtering, and sensitive-data masking are applied before results return. It omits error behavior on rejection and any rate limits, so it is not complete.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero waste; the action is front-loaded and the security pipeline follows in one compact clause. Every phrase 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description plus a fully documented schema cover the call mechanics. The remaining gap is behavioral edge cases (rejection/error surface, tenant_id requirement conditions) that the schema covers only partially.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including role, db_uri, sql_query, and tenant_id semantics. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the general mention of RBAC and tenant filtering, so the 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 ('Validate and run') and resource ('read-only SELECT statement'), so the agent knows this executes SQL rather than explaining or exporting it. It does not name or contrast with siblings like explain_sql_query, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies the tool's context (running read-only SELECTs) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance against explain_sql_query or get_database_schema, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the sibling names.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is non-executing and limited to read-only SELECT statements, which is the key safety trait. It does not cover failure behavior for non-SELECT input, connection/permission requirements, or whether the plan is estimated or analyzed.

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?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and the rationale trailing it. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema (so return format need not be described) and full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is sibling routing and error behavior, both minor given the structured data available.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (db_uri, sql_query) are already documented in the schema, including the default-connection semantics of an empty db_uri. The description only reinforces the SELECT constraint already stated in the sql_query schema, adding little beyond the structured fields. 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: return the execution plan for a read-only SELECT. The clause 'so query performance can be checked before running it' clarifies intent and implicitly separates it from execute_safe_query. However, it never names the sibling it competes with, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'before running it' implies this is a pre-flight check preceding execute_safe_query, and 'read-only SELECT' bounds acceptable input. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative is named, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the operation is read-only and it passes through the same security checks as execute_safe_query. It still omits the behavioral specifics that matter for an export tool, such as size limits, format availability, or how results are returned.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is arguably too terse for what the tool needs to convey, but as a structure/conciseness measure it is efficient.

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 no explanation, and the 100%-covered input schema handles parameters. What is missing is the usage differentiation from execute_safe_query; for a tool whose only apparent distinction is output shape, that gap leaves the definition minimally adequate.

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 all five parameters (role, db_uri, sql_query, tenant_id, format_type) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that baseline, not even a mention of the format options it implies with 'reshaped for a specific use'.

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 specific verb and resource ('Run a read-only query ... return it reshaped'), and references execute_safe_query to signal the relationship to a sibling. However, 'reshaped for a specific use' is vague and never names the actual export formats (csv/excel/chart_json) that distinguish this tool from plain execute_safe_query.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no exclusions. Given that execute_safe_query appears to be the near-identical sibling (same security checks, same read-only query), the description never tells the agent when to pick this tool instead of that one, which is the single most important routing decision here.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions role-based filtering but fails to describe output format, permissions required, potential errors, or how results are structured. The output schema exists but that doesn't excuse the lack of behavioral context.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and enumerates returned data. No wasted words.

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 that there are no annotations and an output schema exists, the description should ideally explain more about behavior, such as caching, performance, or error handling. It covers the core purpose adequately but lacks depth for a tool with zero annotations.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what is in the schema, which meets the baseline of 3 for complete schema coverage.

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 specific verb (Discover) and enumerates the exact resources returned (tables, columns, primary keys, foreign-key relationships). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like execute_safe_query, which run queries rather than introspect schema.

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 implies usage context via 'filtered to only what your role is allowed to see', suggesting it should be used to explore permitted schema. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as explain_sql_query or execute_safe_query.

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