Multi Query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key trait: the tool is read-only and executes multiple SELECT queries in one call. However, it does not explain behavior around partial failures, result ordering, execution semantics, or any limits. This is minimal but non-tautological behavioral information.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The core action and read-only constraint are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a direct efficiency comparison with the sibling tool. Every word earns its place.

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 has only 2 simple parameters, both fully documented in the schema, and no output schema exists. The description clearly conveys the operation but omits any mention of the return shape, how results correspond to the input queries, error behavior, or limitations. For a multi-query tool, some return-format guidance would strengthen 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 100%: both `queries` and `database` are already described clearly in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already fully explains the parameters, and the description doesn't conflict or add confusion.

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 action: 'Execute multiple read-only SQL SELECT queries in a single call.' It clearly identifies the resource (SQL SELECT queries) and differentiates itself from the sibling tool `query` by emphasizing 'multiple' and 'single call.' No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 provides clear context by positioning the tool as 'More efficient than calling query multiple times.' This tells the agent when to use multi_query instead of making repeated `query` calls. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like `query_paginated` or `execute`, but the read-only SELECT scope and efficiency rationale give adequate usage direction.

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