review_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the checks performed and the return shape (verdict safe/review/block and findings with line, impact, fix), but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, does not execute queries, or whether authentication/rate limits apply.

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 front-loaded, compact, and free of filler. It covers the core analysis scope and the return format in two short sentences.

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 description explains what the tool checks and what it returns, which is helpful given there is no output schema. But for a four-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, it leaves important parameter and behavioral context undocumented.

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% and there are four parameters. The description only clarifies one parameter indirectly by saying to pass schema for index checks; it adds no semantics for stats or mysql_version and gives no format detail for sql beyond the query types.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: review queries an application will run, including SELECT/UPDATE/DELETE/INSERT. It also names the checks performed, making the tool's role clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as review_migration or review_code.

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 usage by saying it reviews queries an application will run and advises passing schema for index checks. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives and no when-not-to-use or prerequisite context.

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