check_query

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool does not run the SQL, which is a key safety trait. However, it does not explain what the tool returns or what happens on failure, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence that delivers the essential purpose and key constraint ('without running it') with zero wasted words. It is an ideal length for a simple tool.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and non-execution behavior. However, it omits what the check returns (e.g., boolean, pass/fail message), which is important for an agent to interpret results. This leaves a gap in completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'a SQL statement', which simply restates the parameter name 'sql' and adds no detail about expected format, examples, or constraints. This fails to add meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool checks a SQL statement against a read-only guard without executing it. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'query', which presumably runs the SQL.

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 phrase 'without running it' clearly contrasts with the sibling 'query' tool, implying this is a safe pre-check before executing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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