execute_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Execute a SQL query' implies a write operation could occur, it doesn't specify whether this tool supports read-only queries, what permissions are required, whether transactions are managed, what happens with errors, or any rate limits. For a database execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward execution tool and gets directly to the point.

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 database query execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical context like what types of queries are supported (SELECT, INSERT, etc.), whether results are returned, error handling, transaction behavior, or security implications. Given the complexity of database operations and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.

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 description mentions executing 'a SQL query' which aligns with the 'query' parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the 100% covered schema already provides. The schema descriptions clearly document both parameters, so the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the comprehensive 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 clearly states the action ('Execute') and resource ('SQL query on the connected SQL Server database'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like 'explain_query' or 'analyze_query_performance' which might also involve query execution with different purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 15 sibling tools including 'explain_query', 'analyze_query_performance', and 'get_table_data', there's no indication of when this general execution tool is preferred over more specialized alternatives or what types of queries it's designed for.

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