queryData

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the database type (PostgreSQL) and provides a helpful tip about information_schema, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, transaction behavior, or whether queries are read-only vs. mutating. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides crucial usage guidance, and the Args/Returns sections are clearly labeled. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (direct SQL execution), no annotations, and an output schema that exists, the description does well but has gaps. It explains the parameter meaning and provides database-specific guidance, but doesn't address safety concerns, permissions, or result formatting details that would be important for a SQL execution tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description fully compensates by clearly explaining what the 'sql' parameter is ('SQL query to execute'). It provides essential semantic meaning that the schema alone lacks, though it doesn't give examples or format specifics.

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 specific action ('Execute a SQL query') and target resource ('DX Data Cloud PostgreSQL database'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that are all named get/list/review operations. It precisely defines what this tool does that others don't.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('Always query from information_schema if you are uncertain about which tables and columns to look at'), which gives practical guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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