query_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior, and it does so thoroughly. It states the read-only nature, rejection of destructive statements, pagination behavior (default limit of 100, max 1000, offset support), and signals when more rows exist (truncated flag). The return format is fully specified, which is exceptional given the absence of 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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose and restrictions, then pagination, then output format. Every sentence contributes essential information with zero redundancy or fluff. It is structured so the most critical constraints (read-only, rejected statements) appear first.

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 SQL query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the allowed statements, the rejection rules, pagination mechanics, and the exact JSON response structure. An agent has everything required to call the tool correctly and interpret results. Error handling isn't mentioned, but that is a minor omission given the breadth of what is covered.

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%—all three parameters have descriptive text in the schema. The description adds context around pagination (use limit/offset) but does not introduce new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. The default limit and max are already in the schema, so the description's added value is limited to reinforcing the pagination workflow.

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 verb ('Execute') and resource ('read-only SQL query') and enumerates the allowed statement types (SELECT, WITH, EXPLAIN, read-only PRAGMA). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on arbitrary query execution rather than metadata listing, so an agent can tell it apart immediately.

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 makes clear the tool is for read-only queries and explicitly lists what is rejected (destructive statements, multi-statement, comments). It does not name sibling tools or give explicit 'when to use vs. alternatives' guidance, but the context is unambiguous—if you need to run a SELECT or similar, use this. The exclusion criteria are, however, implied rather than spelled out.

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