Query with Pagination

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add useful behavior: the LIMIT/OFFSET pagination style and the total-row-count return value. It does not state read-only semantics, how the total is computed, or behavior on invalid SQL, which are meaningful gaps given zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scoping. No wasted words — defines what it does (SELECT with pagination) and what it returns (results + total count).

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return shape but leaves gaps: how to pass dynamic values, whether the total reflects pre- or post-pagination, and what happens for non-SELECT statements. Adequate for selection, thinner for invocation edge cases.

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 baseline is 3. The description confirms the limit/offset pair maps to LIMIT/OFFSET pagination, which adds a little nuance, but it does not explain parameterization, quantifiers, or value syntax 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?

Clear verb+resource: executes a SELECT query with LIMIT/OFFSET pagination, and explicitly discloses it returns results plus total row count. The pagination scoping distinguishes it from a pplain query tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the pagination focus — an agent can infer this tool should be chosen when LIMIT/OFFSET pagination is needed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives among siblings like query or describe_table.

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