query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies read-only access to views, but does not disclose safety constraints, row limits, permissions, error behavior, or whether non-read SQL is rejected.

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 wasted words. It is efficiently concise, though the terseness contributes to the missing detail elsewhere.

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?

For a generic SQL query tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only partial parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It does not explain available views, result shape, row limits, or how asset_class affects the queried catalog.

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 50%. The description itself says nothing about the two required parameters. The schema documents asset_class through its enum description, but sql receives no description, and the long QueryParams text discusses omitted limit behavior rather than how to form valid SQL.

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 and resource: execute DuckDB SQL against the lake's channel views. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from the sibling query_market_data or explain the role of asset_class.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as query_market_data, catalog-scan, or search. The description gives no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing SQL over purpose-built sibling tools.

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