sql_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the read-only nature ('Read-only queries only') and the row limit ('Returns up to 1000 rows'), which are the most important behavioral traits for safe invocation. It does not cover error behavior or output format, but the key usage boundary is explicit.

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 entire description is two short sentences. The main action and resource are first, followed by the row cap and safety constraint, with no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter query tool, the description covers the core contract: what it executes, the read-only constraint, and the row limit. It could mention result shape or how to handle errors, but nothing necessary for selecting or invoking the tool is missing; the schema supplies parameter details.

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 schema already documents the sql and max_rows parameters. The description reinforces that the query must be a SELECT and that results cap at 1000 rows, but it adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema states.

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 opens with 'Execute a SELECT query on Dremio', identifying a concrete verb, target system, and query type. It also adds the limit 'Returns up to 1000 rows' and the constraint 'Read-only queries only', making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like explain_query or table_preview.

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 implies this tool is for ad-hoc read-only SQL SELECTs, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when NOT to use it versus table_preview, search_catalog, or explain_query. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and the sibling list.

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