query_golf_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, dialect, statement restrictions, and row limit. It also guides toward aggregation, which is a useful behavioral hint. It stops short of describing error handling or permissions, but the key operational traits are well covered.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adding necessary constraints. No filler or repetition. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool has an output schema and only one parameter, the description covers tables, dialect, statement type, row cap, and points to the data dictionary for detail. It fully enables correct use without needing more context.

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?

The schema only defines 'sql' as a string with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by explaining what the SQL should contain: a single SELECT/WITH statement in DuckDB dialect, with links to table names and data dictionary. This gives the parameter clear semantic meaning beyond the bare 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 states a specific action: 'Run a read-only SQL SELECT over the golf database' with the DuckDB dialect. It lists target tables and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_round or get_shots by identifying itself as a generic SQL query interface.

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 provides clear usage constraints: single statement, SELECT/WITH only, 200-row cap, and a recommendation to aggregate server-side. It also points to the data-dictionary for schema details. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the context makes it clear this is for ad-hoc queries beyond the specialized getters.

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