run_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only enforcement, single-statement restriction, row caps (default 100, max 500) and a 10 s timeout, plus the 'check' keyword quoting requirement. It does not say what happens on cap/timeout truncation or whether errors are raised or returned.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then limits, then the one syntax gotcha. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the essentials (single statement, read-only, row cap, timeout, quoting pitfall) are covered. What remains thin is the shape of results and whether truncation is signaled, which an agent would want before relying on the output.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for both parameters: it constrains 'sql' to one SELECT/WITH statement and warns about quoting the reserved column 'check', and it supplies the effective upper bound of 500 for 'max_rows' which the schema omits. Error/validation behavior for malformed SQL is still unspecified.

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 concrete verb and resource: run one read-only SELECT/WITH query against the 'results store', with the scope constraint of a single statement. An agent can distinguish it from list_tables/describe_table/inspect_dataset, though it never names those siblings explicitly to reinforce the routing.

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?

'Run ONE read-only SELECT/WITH query' implies ad-hoc SQL querying as opposed to metadata inspection, so usage is inferable from the sibling set. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, e.g. no statement that schema discovery should go through list_tables or describe_table first.

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