Query Database

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it manages only one behavioral disclosure: results are sanitized for safe LLM context. It never states that SQL can be destructive (DROP/DELETE/UPDATE), whether transactions are supported, row or timeout limits, or permission requirements — all critical for a tool that can write and destroy data.

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, with no filler. Each sentence carries information, though the sanitization note is vague about what 'sanitized' actually means and could have been replaced with more actionable detail.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain return shape, result limits, and destructive potential. Instead it covers only execution and a vague sanitization note, leaving an agent unable to predict result format or the consequences of a write statement.

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%, so the schema already documents sql, params, and databaseId fully. The description restates the $1/$2 placeholder convention already present in the schema, adding no new meaning about types, binding rules, or limits. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Execute a SQL query against a database.' An agent immediately knows this runs SQL, which no sibling (snapshot, migrate, introspect_schema, create_database) does. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings or clarify scope such as which SQL dialects or statement types are permitted.

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 only usage instruction is the placeholder syntax ('Use $1, $2, ... for parameters'), which is a calling convention rather than guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like introspect_schema or migrate. No conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are given; the agent must infer usage from the purpose sentence alone.

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