run_select_query

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 does disclose the read-only nature and the row cap, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe the return format, pagination behavior, error handling, or what happens when query returns more than 500 rows (truncation? error?). For a query execution tool with zero annotation coverage, more disclosure would help.

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 — two concise sentences that convey purpose and constraints efficiently. Front-loaded with the verb+resource ('Ejecuta una consulta SELECT') followed by operational limits and exclusions. No wasted words, though it could add a sentence on return behavior without becoming bloated.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (query execution), no output schema, and zero annotation coverage, the description provides essential purpose and constraint info but omits behavioral details like return shape, truncation behavior, and any performance or connection considerations. It's adequate for basic use but incomplete for an agent needing to interpret results reliably.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate for the undocumented 'query' parameter. The description states it's a SELECT SQL query with 500-row cap, which gives some guidance. However, it doesn't specify SQL dialect, whether it supports parameters/bind variables, multi-statement queries, or the expected structure (e.g., must it end with semicolon?). With a single param at 0% coverage, the description should be more explicit about the query parameter's constraints.

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 clearly states it executes SELECT queries (read-only) with a 500-row cap. It distinguishes from siblings by indicating it fires actual queries, which none of the sibling metadata-listing tools do. However, it lacks a specific resource/verb clarity that would differentiate it from other query tools, though within this sibling set it's distinct.

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 clearly states when it applies (SELECT read-only queries) and explicitly excludes what it may not be used for (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE/DDL/EXEC), establishing clear constraints. It also specifies the 500-row limit which is operational guidance. The sibling context is implicitly clear since all siblings are metadata-listing tools, not query executors, so no exclusion reference is needed.

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