explain_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the return components ('plan + raw output + duration'), which is useful, but it does not mention side effects, read-only guarantees, or what 'raw output' means. This is adequate but not rich.

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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds information: the action, the target, and the return payload.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented `params` parameter, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation and interpretation. It covers the basic purpose and return high-level information, but misses parameter semantics and routing guidance.

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 no detail about the `params` array, which is likely used for query binding, and only loosely describes `sql` as a SQL query. This leaves the optional parameter's semantics unclear.

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 identifies the action ('Get EXPLAIN plan') and the resource ('a SQL query'), and it states the key outputs. It is concise and distinguishable from siblings like execute_query, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from explain_query_with_advice or compare_query_plans.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus explain_query_with_advice or compare_query_plans. The description implies its use for obtaining an EXPLAIN plan, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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