query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the read-only nature and SQL Server context, but lacks details on error handling, performance implications, or result formatting. It adds value beyond basic purpose but does not fully cover behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads key information (action, read-only nature, query type, and database). There is no wasted text, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and constraints.

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's moderate complexity (SQL query execution), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the core purpose and read-only behavior, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. It is complete enough for basic use but not fully comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'sql' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic context by reinforcing the query type ('SELECT') and database target, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Execute a read-only SQL query') and resource ('against the configured SQL Server database'), with explicit mention of 'SELECT' to distinguish it from potential write operations. It directly addresses what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 context for usage by specifying 'read-only SQL query (SELECT)', which implies when to use this tool (for data retrieval) and when not to use it (for write operations like INSERT/UPDATE). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like sibling tools (describe_table, list_tables) or other query types, leaving some guidance implicit.

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