Execute SQL

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that there is no row cap (so unbounded reads can blow up memory), that transactions are supported, and that database functions can have side effects — consistent with destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true rather than contradicting them. It does not explain what read-only enforcement actually blocks or how results are buffered, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, capabilities, the row-cap/alternative routing, and the side-effect warning. The phrase 'Read-only statement checks and transactions are enabled' is compressed to the point of mild ambiguity.

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?

With an output schema, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description only needs to add operational guidance, which it does via the row cap, LIMIT advice, and side-effect caveat. 'Small results' is left unquantified, so the agent has no concrete threshold for switching to stream_query.

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 both sql and params are already documented including the ? placeholder convention. The description restates the 'one statement' constraint and the LIMIT advice, adding no syntax or value-mapping detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run one SQL statement') and immediately scopes the intended result size plus the SHOW/DESCRIBE/EXPLAIN case. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling stream_query by pointing to LIMIT-then-stream as the alternative for large results.

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?

Gives both the when ('small results', metadata statements) and the explicit alternative ('add LIMIT or use stream_query'), which is the exact routing decision an agent faces among these siblings. Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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