query_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only mentions 'safely' and 'read-only', but fails to cover error handling, authentication requirements, result format, rate limits, or side effects. The minimal disclosure leaves significant uncertainty about tool behavior.

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 sentence, which is concise but at the expense of necessary details. It is front-loaded with the purpose but omits parameter explanations and usage context. Every sentence should earn its place; this one only partially does.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It fails to document how to use parameters, the output format, or how this tool relates to siblings. Significant gaps remain for the agent to function correctly.

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%, and the description provides no details about the three parameters (statement, params, dbAlias). It does not explain what params does, how to format the statement, or the role of dbAlias. The description adds zero semantic value beyond the raw 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's purpose: 'Safely execute a read-only SQL query and retrieve results'. It specifies a verb ('execute'), a resource ('SQL query'), and a key constraint ('read-only'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like execute_tool (likely for writes) and transaction_tool (for transactional operations).

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 read-only queries via the 'read-only' qualifier, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_tool for writes or transaction_tool for transactions. No when-not guidance or alternative names are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from sibling names.

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