run_query

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

The description discloses the important read-only nature of the operation, which is a meaningful behavioral trait especially given there are no annotations. It also mentions bound parameters, implying parameterized execution, but it does not elaborate on query restrictions, max_rows behavior, errors, or potential overhead.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the primary action and the key constraint efficiently.

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?

The output schema covers return values, and the parameters are relatively simple, which reduces the burden on the description. However, the description omits guidance on alternatives and leaves max_rows semantics implicit, making it minimally complete but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter docs. It only refers to 'bound parameters', which loosely maps to the params argument, but it does not explain the parameter placeholder format or the purpose of max_rows. The sql parameter is self-evident but not elaborated.

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 verb ('Run') and resource ('SQL query'), and adds the key constraints 'read-only' and 'bound parameters' that distinguish it from sibling describe_tables, which is about table metadata rather than data queries.

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 the tool is for arbitrary read-only SQL execution, which gives a general sense of when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with describe_tables or state when one should be preferred over the other, leaving the boundary to inference.

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