execute_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but only states that it executes SQL and returns results. It fails to disclose that arbitrary SQL (including writes/destructive statements) can be run, that there are default limits (max_rows=100, timeout), or what the response structure looks like. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that can potentially modify data.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Execute a SQL query against Snowflake and return the results.' Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a general-purpose tool.

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?

Despite having 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It doesn't mention possible side effects of executing arbitrary SQL, result format defaults, row limits, or error behavior. For a tool that can run any query, the lack of safety and result-shape context leaves the agent under-informed.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The schema already documents query, format, timeout, and max_rows effectively.

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 tool executes a SQL query against Snowflake and returns results, using a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools by name, its general-purpose nature is evident compared to the more specialized table inspection and metadata tools listed as siblings.

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, such as explain_query for query plans or get_table_sample for quick data previews. It neither states use cases nor excludes scenarios, leaving the agent to infer when this general SQL execution tool is appropriate.

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