run_safe_sql

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: read-only mode, forced LIMIT, execution-time and result-row guardrails, and requirement for CLICKHOUSE_MCP_ALLOW_RAW_SQL=true. It does not contradict any annotations as none exist. Minor gap: no mention of error handling or response format, but output schema exists.

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 concise with two short sections, front-loading the main purpose. However, it could be slightly better structured (e.g., bullet points for constraints). Still efficient and clear.

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 tool's complexity (raw SQL execution), the absence of annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description covers safety and constraints but lacks parameter details and usage examples. It is minimally adequate.

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 explain parameters. It mentions 'forced LIMIT' but does not detail the 'limit' parameter or explain 'query' format/syntax. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 tool runs a single read-only SELECT query, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'prefer the structured tools' and highlighting the raw SQL nature.

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 explicitly states when to use (when raw SQL is needed but only read-only), warns it is disabled by default, requires an environment variable, and advises preferring structured tools. This provides clear guidance and exclusion criteria.

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