Run SQL statement

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

Discloses the key safety trait—read-only execution with DML/DDL disabled—which is important since no annotations are provided. However, it is silent on return shape, large-result behavior, error handling, and what happens if allowWrite=true is passed, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the first front-loads the core purpose and the second provides essential environment context about write support.

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?

Covers the core operation and read-only constraint, and the schema handles parameter details. But with no output schema and no annotations, the lack of any return/result description or allowWrite-behavior note leaves the definition somewhat incomplete for a SQL execution tool.

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?

The schema already fully describes the sql, binds, and allowWrite parameters at 100% coverage. The description adds value by restricting sql to SELECT/WITH statements, which the schema does not explicitly state.

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 action ('Executes') and resource ('read-only SELECT/WITH SQL'), immediately ruling out DML/DDL. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling metadata tools like list_tables and describe_table.

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?

Clearly frames the tool as read-only and explains that the server was not started with --allow-write, so write attempts are not valid. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools as alternatives, but the intended context for running ad hoc read queries is clear.

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