sql_format

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the formatting behavior (indentation and keyword capitalization) and constrains the supported query types, providing meaningful context. It does not mention edge cases like invalid SQL handling, but for a formatter this is adequate.

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 core description is two short sentences, clear and front-loaded. However, the prefix '[PRO — 3 trial uses left]' is unrelated to the tool's function and adds noise, reducing conciseness. Otherwise it would be a 5.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema) and the description covers the supported query types and behavior. It does not explain return values or error handling, but these are reasonably inferable for a formatter. The description complete enough given the low complexity.

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 both parameters. The description adds the notion of 'keyword capitalization' which mirrors the uppercase parameter but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('Format') and resource ('a SQL query') with detailed behavior ('proper indentation and keyword capitalization'). It also lists supported query types, distinguishing it from sibling formatters like json_format. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to format SQL) and which query types are supported, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternative tool references.

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