query_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says only that results are paginated; it never states that the operation is a safe read, whether it requires authentication or specific table permissions, what happens with large result sets, or how defaults interact with the response.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than tight precision.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is far too thin: it omits return shape, safety profile, error conditions, and any routing against the many sibling query/list tools.

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% (page, limit, table all documented inline with defaults), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, ordering, or pagination interaction beyond what the schema already says.

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 ('Buscar dados paginados de uma tabela') so an agent knows it retrieves rows from a table with pagination. However it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling 'execute_sql', which could also return table data, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus 'list_tables', 'get_columns', or 'execute_sql'. Nothing indicates whether this is the preferred simple read path or a fallback, and no prerequisites (permissions, table existence) are mentioned.

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