db_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that the SQL is fixed at preset definition time, that an approval prompt fires per policy, that a previously approved time-boxed window bypasses the prompt and is logged as 'windowed', and that results come back as JSON rows. These are non-obvious side effects an agent must know before calling.

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 critical constraint (named query only, no arbitrary SQL) is front-loaded and the return format follows. The closing sentence on the pre-approved window is longer than needed but conveys a real behavioral difference rather than filler.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema and the approval/audit behavior is explained in prose, so the main gaps are covered. The one omission is a definition of preset_name and where presets come from, which matters for a three-parameter 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?

Schema coverage is only 67%, and the description compensates by explaining that query_name must match a preset-declared name and that params are positional with types matching the named query's param_types. The remaining undocumented parameter, preset_name, is left implicit — the agent can infer it but it is never defined.

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 and resource ('Run a NAMED QUERY against a database preset') and immediately bounds the scope with 'you cannot send arbitrary SQL'. This distinguishes it from a generic SQL tool and from siblings like list_presets or proxy_http without needing their schemas.

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 establishes the precondition that query_name must match one declared in the preset, and explains the approval flow that governs invocation. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to a sibling (e.g. list_presets to discover query names) or stating when another tool such as proxy_http would be preferred.

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