Run a read-only SQL query

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: read-only, TSV output, no truncation, single statement requirement, and cautions about large results. This covers key behavioral traits effectively.

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 (4-5 sentences) and well-structured: first sentence states purpose and output, then constraints, then caution and parameter details. No unnecessary 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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete: it explains output format, constraints, cautions, and parameter requirements. It lacks only explicit error handling info, but that is minor.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'path' must be absolute and 'sql' must be a single statement, and provides an example of what to avoid (SELECT *). This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 runs a read-only SQL query against a SQLite database and returns results as TSV. It distinguishes from sibling tools (describe_table, list_tables) which are for schema inspection, not arbitrary queries.

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?

Explicitly mentions read-only nature, that INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE fail, advises caution with broad queries, and specifies the need for absolute paths and single statements. Does not explicitly mention alternatives but strongly implies this tool is for ad-hoc queries.

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