demo.query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the read-only policy and that writes are rejected, plus the required parameterization style. It omits auth/permission requirements, rate limits, and result/pagination behavior, so key behavioral context is still missing.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the two operative constraints. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, every clause earns its place.

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 read-only query tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile (read-only, writes rejected) and the parameterization contract. The main gap is the meaning/effect of 'limit' and whether results are capped, which is relevant to correct invocation.

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 coverage is 50%: 'sql' and 'dryRun' are documented in the schema, while 'limit' and 'params' are not. The description partially compensates by explaining the $1/$2 placeholder convention that the undocumented 'params' array feeds, but 'limit' remains unexplained in both places.

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 ('Run a read-only SQL query against the demo database'), which is clearly distinct from the schema-exploration siblings demo.describe_table and demo.list_tables. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Gives an operational instruction ('Use parameterized form ($1, $2, ...)') and a constraint (writes rejected), which implies the intended usage. It never says when to prefer this over demo.describe_table or demo.list_tables, so routing is left to inference.

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