execute_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates the read-only nature via 'Solo consultas SELECT permitidas' and gives a clear list of available data. It also warns about best practices like limiting results. It could additionally describe return format or error behavior, but the essence of the tool's behavior is well-covered.

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 well-organized into clear sections (DATOS DISPONIBLES, MEJORES PRÁCTICAS, EJEMPLO). Every sentence provides actionable information: the data list prevents guesswork, the best practices are concise and directly useful, and the example demonstrates usage. No filler or redundancy.

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 SQL query tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: available tables, best practices, and an example. The main gap is that it does not describe what the query result object looks like (e.g., array of row objects), but given the simplicity and the example, an agent can likely infer this. It also appropriately points to schema discovery as a prerequisite.

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% (both query and params are described). The description adds value by reinforcing the parameter usage with an example ('SELECT * FROM turnos WHERE fecha >= CURDATE() LIMIT 10') and by explaining the placeholder mechanism (?) for dynamic values. This goes beyond the schema, which only shows type and example, by giving contextual guidance on their combined 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 clearly states the action: 'Ejecuta consultas SQL SELECT en la base de datos de Dossin.' It lists the specific data entities available, which helps an agent understand the scope. The sibling tools (get_database_schema, compile_and_save_component) are clearly different in purpose, so this tool is well-distinguished.

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 provides explicit best practices: use parameters (?), fetch schema first, use LIMIT, and use CURDATE(). The 'Solo consultas SELECT permitidas' restriction clarifies when not to use this tool (i.e., for non-SELECT operations). However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool for schema retrieval, though 'Obtén el schema primero' strongly implies get_database_schema.

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