veto_query_advisor

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds behavioral detail by specifying what the tool returns (rewrite suggestions, CREATE INDEX, N+1 detection, index risk assessment), which goes beyond the readOnly 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and output. Every word adds value, no redundancy.

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?

Given 4 parameters (all described in schema) and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and the key inputs. It could mention that it is read-only (already in annotations) but is otherwise 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 coverage is 100% (all parameters described in schema), so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'SQL query or EXPLAIN ANALYZE output + optional schema' which maps to query, explain_output, and schema parameters, but does not add meaning beyond the schema. The agent_response parameter is not mentioned in the description.

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 accepts SQL query or EXPLAIN ANALYZE output and returns specific outputs (rewrite suggestions, CREATE INDEX statements, N+1 detection, index risk assessment). The verb 'accepts' and explicit list of outputs make purpose very specific and distinct from sibling tools like veto_security_scan.

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 implies the tool is for analyzing SQL queries and providing optimization advice, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., other advisors). No when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned.

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