Query database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and handles it thoroughly. It reveals that pagination is server-applied, that results include paging metadata, that non-SELECT statements are refused, and that stable ORDER BY is required for multi-page consistency. This is substantial behavioral context beyond a simple 'run a query' statement.

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 sentences contain the full contract: the permitted statement forms, the explicit exclusions, and the pagination caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema details or 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?

Given the schema covers parameter syntax and an output schema exists, the description supplies the missing behavioral contract: allowed query types, refused constructs, server-applied pagination, and the stable ORDER BY requirement. An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly without ambiguity.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful operational semantics: placeholders should be used for values via the parameters array, and pagination is applied server-side, which directly informs how page/pageSize should be used. That elevates it above baseline.

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 begins with an explicit scope: 'Executes exactly one read-only SELECT or WITH ... SELECT query.' It combines a clear verb, resource, and exact statement forms, and the constraints (no DDL, DML, transactions, PRAGMA, or multiple statements) make it easy to distinguish from the schema-retrieval sibling.

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 clearly states what is allowed and what is refused, so an agent knows this is the tool for read-only queries rather than schema inspection or mutations. It also provides concrete guidance for pagination: include a stable ORDER BY when retrieving multiple pages. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling as an alternative for schema retrieval, hence not a 5.

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