query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description confirms read-only without contradiction. The description adds genuine value beyond annotations by disclosing row limits and an execution budget, which are not visible in the structured fields. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action first, followed by the key constraints. It has no filler or redundant phrasing. Slightly dense in Korean but well-ordered and efficient.

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 values need not be described. The description covers read-only semantics, statement type restriction, row limits, and execution budget. The main gap is the undocumented params parameter — an agent cannot reliably know how to use the third argument based on either the schema or the description.

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 provides partial semantics: 'single SELECT/WITH' constrains the required sql parameter, and 'row limit' loosely maps to the limit parameter. However, the params object parameter (default null) is completely unexplained, leaving it ambiguous whether it binds query parameters or something else. With 3 parameters and zero schema coverage, coverage is incomplete.

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 a specific verb ('performs') and resource ('a single SELECT/WITH SQL') with explicit constraints (read-only, row-limited, budgeted). It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools by positioning itself as the escape hatch 'for analyses difficult to solve with hand-crafted tools,' though it doesn't name a specific sibling it replaces.

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 only — the agent can infer to use this when the hand-crafted sibling tools (check, find, get, etc.) are insufficient. However, no explicit when-not-to-use conditions are given, no sibling tools are named, and the phrasing 'difficult to solve with hand-crafted tools' leaves the exact boundary vague.

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