query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that executability, read-only status, sensitive-field detection, row caps, timeouts, and result masking are all governed by Archery's permissions/policies, and that this MCP neither rewrites SQL nor masks returned fields. That is exactly the kind of governance and side-effect context an agent needs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, behavior in the middle, parameters last. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds decision-relevant information; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Given that, the description covers purpose, policy-driven behavior, and both parameters well; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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, and it does: sql is defined as the query to submit, and limit's fallback chain is explained (ARCHERY_QUERY_LIMIT when omitted, 0 defers to Archery's maximum permission limit) — semantics the bare integer schema cannot convey.

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 first sentence states a specific verb+resource: executing SQL queries through Archery. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_tables, describe_table, and query_history, though it never explicitly names those alternatives to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Usage context is implied — this is the tool that submits SQL to Archery while sql_check and query_history serve other roles — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, nor any instruction to run sql_check first or a statement of prerequisites.

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