SQL query

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that write operations require confirmation ('Writes need confirm+full'), which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not explain the meaning of 'full', nor does it address error handling, result format, or side effects beyond the confirmation requirement. This is a partial disclosure but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise—one sentence—and front-loads the key constraint (SELECT-first). It wastes no words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of clarity, omitting essential details about parameters and usage. It is concise but under-specified, which balances to a middle score.

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?

This tool executes arbitrary SQL, making it complex and potentially dangerous. With no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema that is not described in the text, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return behavior, error handling, parameter details, or the 'full' requirement for writes. For a tool of this power, the description is far from complete.

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%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It only indirectly references the 'confirm' parameter and introduces the ambiguous term 'full'. The dsn, sql, and limit parameters are not explained at all. Given the high parameter count and lack of schema descriptions, the description fails to clarify parameter meanings.

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 the tool executes SQL queries, specifically SELECT-first, and supports postgres and sqlite. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like db_tables (which lists tables) and db_status (status) by its focus on arbitrary SQL execution. However, it does not explicitly name these alternatives, so it lacks the explicit differentiation seen in higher-scoring examples.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as db_tables or db_status. While the SELECT-first wording implies a preference for read-only queries, there is no mention of when to choose this tool over others or any exclusions. The usage context is only implied, not stated.

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