Flarelink — query a D1 database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'runs with full database access' and returns 'rows + query meta (duration, rows_read/written),' disclosing the write risk and output behavior. The warning to prefer SELECT adds important safety context.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then security guidance, return format, and a safety warning. Every sentence adds necessary information with no fluff or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return value (rows + meta). For a 3-parameter tool with high schema coverage, it covers purpose, usage, parameter binding, safety, and output — sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between sql and params: 'Use bound parameters (? placeholders + params) — never concatenate user input.' This clarifies how to construct the sql string and use params safely, surpassing the schema's basic descriptions.

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 verb ('Run') and resource ('SQL statement against one of the project's D1 databases'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that list databases or patterns, as this is the query execution tool.

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?

Provides clear guidance on how to use the tool safely: 'Use bound parameters (? placeholders + params) — never concatenate user input' and 'prefer SELECT unless you intend to write.' This implies when to use (reads) and cautions against unintended writes, though it does not directly name alternative tools for non-query operations.

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