Execute Query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states read-only behavior, preview-capping, and summarisation of large cells, which are key behavioral traits. It also explains the rationale (protect caller's context). Missing details like error handling or timeout are minor for a query tool.

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 concise (three sentences) and well-structured: purpose and return format first, then usage tips. Every sentence earns its place, and the key information about preview-capping is front-loaded. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return format is partly covered, but the description still explains the markdown table and metadata. It covers the essential aspects: read-only, preview cap, and summarisation. It lacks info on error behavior or limits, but for a straightforward query tool this is acceptable.

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. It explains max_rows' purpose (when to pass it) but does not describe the 'query' parameter beyond implying SELECT/WITH syntax. The query is self-explanatory as a string, but the parameter semantics are not fully fleshed out for a schema that offers no descriptions.

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 read-only SELECT/WITH queries and returns a markdown table with metadata. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tables or sample_table_data, which serve different purposes. The verb 'executes' and resource 'query' are specific and 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?

The description provides practical usage guidance (e.g., aggregate in SQL, only pass max_rows when needed) but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus alternatives like sample_table_data. The context of being the primary query tool is implied, but not stated as a rule or recommendation.

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