executeNeonSqlQuery

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states the tool is 'read-only', which is a critical safety trait, and that it 'returns the results', indicating output behavior. However, it does not mention constraints like query timeouts, result size limits, or how errors are handled, leaving some 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 a single sentence of 14 words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose, scope, and safety profile. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior: executing a read-only SQL query and returning results. It does not elaborate on result format or limitations, but given the low complexity, this is acceptable. The read-only qualifier adds important context beyond the schema.

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?

The schema describes the 'query' parameter minimally as 'The SQL query to execute.' The description adds semantic meaning by specifying that the query must be 'read-only', which is a crucial constraint not present in the schema. This enriches the parameter understanding beyond the 100% schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Executes'), a specific resource ('SQL query against your Neon database'), and the scope ('read-only'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like executePostgreSQLSqlQuery and executeSupabaseSqlQuery. It also mentions the return behavior, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: for read-only SQL queries against Neon. The 'read-only' qualifier serves as a usage guideline by excluding write queries. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it (e.g., 'for write operations use X'), but the context is clear enough from the sibling tool names.

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