sql_editor_rows

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses operational limits ('at most limit rows and about 2 MB per call') and the wait_ms waiting semantics vs. polling. This is useful behavioral context that annotations don't carry, though it omits behavior when the stream is expired or unknown.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and origin tool, then the two operational facts that matter (size cap, wait behavior). No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must hint at returns; 'plus its progress' signals that rows and progress metadata are returned. Combined with the size/limit guidance, this is nearly complete for a paginated streaming reader, though it could clarify progress/end-of-stream signaling.

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 carries the burden and largely does: it explains offset, limit, and wait_ms (including waiting past offset or to the end while loading). stream_id is only implied as the result handle from sql_editor_query, leaving one param underspecified.

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 ('More rows of a streamed SQL Editor result') and names the originating sibling ('from sql_editor_query'), so an agent can immediately tell this is the pagination/continuation tool rather than a fresh query. Scope and paging intent are unambiguous.

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?

Clear context: use this to fetch rows past 'offset' of a result previously produced by sql_editor_query, and 'instead of polling' via wait_ms. It gives an alternative pattern for retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or name a competing tool for the same data.

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