get_dataset_sql

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds only that the payload is the SQL query behind the dataset, which is mildly useful context but discloses nothing about permissions, rate limits, or the fact that only custom-SQL datasets actually have a query.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description need not explain return values, and for a one-parameter getter it is nearly sufficient. The one gap is that it doesn't warn that datasets without custom SQL have no query to return, which would prevent a confused call.

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% and there is a single required parameter, so the schema fully documents dataset_id. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('SQL query powering a QuickSight dataset'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from write siblings like update_dataset_sql or modify_dataset_sql. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings or call out that this is the read counterpart, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read-only way to inspect a dataset's SQL and that update_dataset_sql/modify_dataset_sql are the mutation paths.

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