sql_find_data

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 discloses some behavioral traits: searches across varchar/nvarchar/int columns via the value parameter description. However, it doesn't disclose performance characteristics (full-table scans on large tables), case sensitivity, or exact-match vs substring semantics, which would matter for a search tool.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose before the usage guidance. No wasted words, though the second sentence about use case is somewhat redundant with the first sentence's 'across all columns' phrase.

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 2-parameter search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. However, it omits key behavioral details that matter for search: whether matching is case-insensitive, whether it's substring or exact match, and potential performance implications of searching across all columns on large tables. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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%, with both parameters documented in the schema (table format examples, value as text across varchar/nvarchar/int columns). The description adds marginal value by restating the search-across-columns concept, but doesn't go beyond the schema's parameter docs with additional format or behavior details.

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 has a specific verb ('Search') plus a resource ('a value across all columns in a table'), and clearly states the use case: finding a value when you know it exists but don't know the column. It's a distinctive capability that differentiates from siblings like sql_run_query and sql_count_and_sample, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 explains when to use it ('when you know a value exists but don't know which column it's in'), giving clear context. It relies on the sibling names to imply when not to use it (e.g., sql_run_query for general queries), but doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives.

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