db_sample_query

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does deliver the single most important trait: '(READ-ONLY)', which tells the agent no mutation risk exists. Beyond that it says nothing about result limits, timeouts, error behavior, supported statement types, or whether the read-only nature is enforced or merely stated — meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

A single short sentence with the target database and the read-only constraint front-loaded; nothing is wasted. Its terseness is more a completeness problem than a structural one, so structure itself scores well.

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?

The tool has a required opaque parameter at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description is the only source of context — and it supplies roughly one line. An agent still cannot tell how to format the query argument, what the result shape is, or when to prefer db_sample_schema, making this inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 0% and the sole parameter is an opaque string named 'kwargs', which the schema gives no meaning for. The description could have clarified that this is the raw SQL text to execute, plus any expected formatting, but adds nothing, leaving the agent to guess how to populate the only required argument.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Run an SQL query') and pins the target ('database sample.db'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool operates on. It falls short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling 'db_sample_schema', which an agent would reasonably confuse with it.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of inspecting the schema first via db_sample_schema, and no alternative tools named among the six siblings. The only implied usage is 'you have a SQL query to run,' which the agent must infer entirely.

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