raw_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that access is read-only, queries are validated to be SELECT-only, and pagination is automatic to bound response size. This gives an agent a solid safety model, though it does not mention authentication, query complexity limits, or exact result shaping.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place: the action, the read-only property, and the pagination behavior. No filler or redundant information is present.

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 tool of this complexity, the description covers the essential safety behaviors, validation rule, and pagination. The main gap is that it does not specify the return value shape or note any usage exclusions, but the pagination parameters plus the schema give enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the meaning of query, page, and limit. The description adds a small amount of context by explaining pagination behavior and the SELECT-only validation, but it does not materially extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Execute'), a specific resource ('a raw SELECT query on the database'), and the boundary of what it does. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which retrieve schema metadata or table descriptions rather than execute arbitrary SQL.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use raw_query versus the sibling tools such as search_tables, get_tables, or describe_table. The description implies it is for ad-hoc SELECT queries, but it never states when an agent should prefer it over the structured metadata tools or when one of those alternatives would be more appropriate.

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