run_select

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two non-obvious behaviors: the operation is read-only enforced, and a LIMIT is auto-injected with a 200-row cap when missing — which materially affects result completeness. It stops short of covering error behavior, statement-count limits, or timeouts.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (read-only, auto-LIMIT 200) is front-loaded where an agent will see it first.

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 single-parameter query tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential call-time facts: what it does, the read-only restriction, and the row cap. It could go slightly further on result shape (no output schema exists to document it) and failure modes, but the gaps are minor.

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 0% and the single 'sql' parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by constraining the input to a SELECT-only statement, but says nothing about dialect, multi-statement support, or placeholder/binding syntax.

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+resource pair ('Run a read-only SELECT'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling tools list_tables and describe_table since those deal with metadata rather than executing queries. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 read-only constraint implies when this tool applies (querying data rather than inspecting schema), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of whether write/DDL statements are rejected, and no routing language pointing to list_tables or describe_table for discovery.

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