execute_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely valuable behavioral trait beyond the schema: returned values are untrusted and embedded instructions must be ignored. However, it never discloses whether the query may mutate data, what permissions are required, what the result shape is, or whether row/time limits apply — significant omissions for a tool that can run arbitrary SQL.

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 short sentences, the core action front-loaded, with the safety caveat immediately after. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral truth for a high-power arbitrary-SQL tool, and it leaves the critical questions unanswered: can the query write or drop data, what does the response contain (rows vs. affected count), and are there execution limits. The injection warning is a good start but not sufficient.

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%, so both parameters (query, optional database) are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or dialect detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb+resource ("Execute a SQL query") against a named backend ("connected SQL Server database"), which distinguishes it from analysis-oriented siblings like explain_query and get_query_performance. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with read-only siblings such as get_table_data, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus get_table_data, export_table_csv, or the query-analysis tools. The second sentence is a prompt-injection warning, not a usage rule, so the agent must infer selection criteria entirely on its own.

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