sql

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful operational context beyond those annotations: SELECT-only execution, a 200-row result cap, the schema prerequisite, and the SQLite dialect.

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 with the core purpose and constraints, and every sentence carries useful information. It is dense but efficient, with no obvious 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?

For a one-parameter SQL tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key constraints, prerequisite, dialect, and query examples. It does not describe result shape, but for arbitrary SQL returns that is reasonably covered by the instruction to call `schema` first.

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%, but there is only one parameter and the description compensates well by explaining that it is a SQLite SQL query, must be SELECT-only, is capped at 200 rows, and benefits from checking `schema` first. The Hebrew and Greek examples add useful query-shape guidance.

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 and resource: read-only SQLite queries against the index. It also clearly positions the tool against siblings by saying it is for questions the other tools do not cover, such as morphology patterns.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool: only for questions not covered by other tools, and gives an example use case. It also gives a prerequisite, 'Call `schema` first,' and a hard constraint, 'Only SELECT is permitted.'

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