run_query

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses the row cap of 200, the existence of a `truncated` indicator, and a 2-second timeout. It also declares the rejection set, so an agent knows which statements will fail before attempting them.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary constraint and every sentence adding a distinct operational fact. Nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still flags `truncated` as worth checking. The only remaining gap is the absence of dialect or parameter-binding guidance, which is minor for a single-argument tool.

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% for the single `sql` parameter, and the description says only that it must be one SELECT statement, implying no semicolon-separated statements. It adds no dialect or binding information beyond that constraint.

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 and resource ('Run ONE read-only SELECT statement') and immediately constrains it to a single read query. Siblings (list_tables, describe_table, get_schema_ddl) are schema-introspection tools, so the contrast is implicit rather than stated, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Enumerates what is rejected (writes, PRAGMA, ATTACH, multiple statements), which tells an agent when NOT to use it, and the SELECT-only framing implies it should be used to retrieve data rather than inspect schema. It does not name a preferred sibling when a schema question arises.

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