validateQuery

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond those: 'without executing it', 'prepares the statement', and the specific validation dimensions (parameters, syntax, referenced objects). There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, then adds sibling routing and binding details in two tightly written sentences plus an example. No filler or repetition of schema content; every sentence contributes distinct decision-relevant information.

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 present, return values need no explanation. The description covers what the tool does, what it does not do (execute), how to choose between siblings, and how to bind parameters. Combined with annotations and schema descriptions, an agent has all necessary context to call this tool correctly.

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?

The schema already documents params and namedParams with clear semantics. The description adds value by explaining the mapping between '?' and ':name' placeholders, warning against mixing, and providing a concrete example where the key is the bare name. The sql parameter itself lacks a schema description, but the tool's purpose statement ('SELECT / WITH / EXPLAIN') gives adequate implied meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether the database driver accepts a SELECT / WITH / EXPLAIN without executing it.' It then details what validation covers (parameters, syntax, referenced objects) and explicitly contrasts with inspectQuery and queryLint, making the tool's unique role unmistakable.

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 gives direct routing guidance: use inspectQuery for parser-only AST inspection, and queryLint for advisory metadata/index warnings. It also provides binding rules ('never mix') and a concrete example, so the agent knows exactly when and how to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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