sql_format

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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight for behavioral disclosure. It does add the notable cost factor ($0.001 USDC via x402), but it omits any explanation of what the tool does or side effects, so the core behavior remains unknown.

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 appropriately concise at two short clauses, but it is so sparse that it fails to be informative. It is not bloated, but it does not earn its place beyond naming the tool and its price.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and a generic parameter object, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose, input requirements, or return value, making it nearly impossible for an agent to use this 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% because the only parameter is a generic 'params' object. Baseline is therefore 3, but the description adds no additional meaning about what fields to pass, and the schema itself is only a wrapper. The agent gets no help in constructing valid arguments.

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 simply repeats the tool name 'sql format' and tags it as 'Other Utilities tool,' providing no verb or resource. It fails to state that the tool formats SQL code, and it does nothing to distinguish this from the many other utility tools in the sibling list.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as code_beautify or other formatters. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any basis for choosing it.

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