query_database

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces these by stating schema and data changes are forbidden. It adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by explaining pagination (use offset when hasMore is true) and requiring ? placeholders with params. This exceeds the baseline given annotation coverage.

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 exceptionally concise and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose, then covering parameter usage, pagination, and schema-inspection advice in just a few sentences. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 output schema handles return values and annotations cover safety, the description is largely complete for a query tool. It covers read-only behavior, parameterization, pagination, and best-practice schema inspection. The main gap is the lack of explicit linkage to the sibling inspect_database tool, which would strengthen the workflow guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needs to explain parameters, but it only partially does so. It covers sql implicitly, explains params with ? placeholders, and clarifies offset for pagination, but does not describe the limit parameter or its constraints. This partial compensation earns a mid-range score.

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 executes a read-only SELECT or WITH ... SELECT statement, specifying a precise verb and resource. It distinguishes itself as a query tool but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling inspect_database, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 context by instructing to inspect the schema before guessing column names or semantics, which suggests a workflow involving schema inspection. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name inspect_database as the schema-inspection tool. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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