validate_sql_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (a 0-100 compliance score plus violations with severity and suggestions), which is valuable given no output schema exists. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether validation is exhaustive or partial when multiple rule sets apply, or how violations map to the 'BSG standards' it references.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the first states what is validated and over which object types, the second states what is returned. Purpose and output are front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 read-only validation tool with full schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it names the rule set, the accepted object types, and the output contents, which compensates for the missing output schema. The gap is usage routing among sibling validators, which is left entirely unaddressed.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the enum and the optional schema parameter. The description adds no format, syntax, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Performs full structural validation of a SQL block') and enumerates the object types it handles, so the scope is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as validate_object_name or check_audit_fields, leaving the agent to infer which validator to call.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative among the many sibling validation tools. The agent gets no signal on when this full-structural check should be chosen over the narrower checks.

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