run_sql

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey all behavioral traits. It states it executes DDL (destructive) and queries, and returns markdown, but does not mention authentication needs, error behavior, transaction handling, or idempotency. Basic transparency is present but could be richer.

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 extremely concise with two statements that are front-loaded and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 (SQL execution) and complete schema coverage, the description covers the basic functionality and return format. It lacks cautionary notes about DDL destructiveness or permissions, but overall it is fairly complete for a straightforward tool.

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 100% and the description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., project_id defaults, sql is SQL, params are bind parameters). 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 the resource 'SQL (DDL or queries) against a provisioned project', and specifies the return format as a markdown table. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'rest_query' which are for REST queries.

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 implies usage for running SQL, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It is clear enough for its purpose but lacks explicit guidance.

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