query_dataset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that only SELECT operations are run, that results are capped at 50 rows, and that full-table dumps are forbidden. This is meaningful behavioral context for a read-only query tool, though it does not mention auth, errors, or return shape.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The key constraints are front-loaded and every word adds value. This is an efficient, well-structured description.

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 one-parameter query tool, the description is mostly complete: it states the operation, allowed data sources, row limit, and guarding behavior. It lacks an explicit statement about return format or output structure, but no output schema exists and the tool's purpose strongly implies a row result set.

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?

The input schema describes the single 'sql' parameter only by name and type, with 0% description coverage. The tool description compensates somewhat by clarifying that the SQL must be a SELECT and that the result set is limited to 50 rows. However, it does not explain SQL formatting, table qualification, or statement restrictions beyond SELECT.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run a SELECT against dims, facts, or OLTP.' It also adds a concrete constraint, LIMIT 50, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly differentiates from the ETL/generation/fraud-case siblings by being the only direct query tool.

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 gives clear context: this is for SELECT queries against dims, facts, or OLTP, with a 50-row limit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately among the listed siblings.

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