Get Query Context

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds that the join path comes with a ready FROM/JOIN clause and role notes and that examples are 'verified', which is modestly useful context about output quality. It says nothing about failure modes, what happens with unknown terms, or datasource resolution.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with no filler, and the payoff ('Everything needed to write the SQL') is front-loaded before the colon-led enumeration. The list is long but each item is a distinct artifact, so nothing obviously wastes space.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to enumerate return contents, yet it does so at length while leaving preconditions unaddressed. For a bundled context-fetching tool, an agent would still benefit from knowing whether a missing or ambiguous term degrades the result and whether a datasource must be scanned first. It is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already explains terms, question and datasource. The description hints at the relationship between terms and the generated join clause and between the question and verified example queries, adding slight meaning. It does not clarify term-resolution behavior (names vs synonyms vs ids) or whether multiple terms must be related.

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 the specific resource it assembles (qualified tables, mapped columns with sample values, join path, verified examples, glossary, dialect rules) and frames it as the complete input for writing SQL, which distinguishes it from narrower siblings such as find_join_path or lookup_values. It leans on a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource pairing, but the content is concrete enough that an agent knows exactly what it gets.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'Everything needed to write the SQL', which suggests calling it before authoring a query. It never says when to prefer it over siblings like describe_table, get_term, find_join_path or lookup_values, nor what to do if the returned context is insufficient. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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