execute_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'return results' but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether queries can modify data (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE), authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or result size limitations. For a tool that could be destructive, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the complexity of database query execution (potential for data modification, security implications) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address safety, permissions, result formatting details, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to navigate.

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%, providing detailed documentation for all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that queries can include various SQL statements (SELECT, INSERT, etc.). It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the verb 'execute' and resource 'SQL query against a database', specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like 'describe_table' or 'list_tables' by focusing on query execution rather than metadata retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'execute_script', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'execute_script' or other siblings. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., database connectivity), appropriate query types, or scenarios where other tools might be better suited. Usage context is implied but not articulated.

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