execute_query

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

The description's strongest behavioral disclosure is 'read-only', which conveys that the tool has no mutating side effects. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not mention how the query is executed, whether there are any restrictions on query types, or what happens on errors.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the essential action and target. There is no filler or redundant wording, making it appropriately concise.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not describe the return format, how results are presented, or any limitations, leaving the agent to guess at critical execution details beyond the core purpose.

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 undocumented 'query' parameter, but it only says 'read-only query' without explaining query format, SQL dialect, or constraints. The target 'remote Neon database' adds context, but it does not meaningfully define the parameter's semantics beyond the parameter name.

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 clear action ('Execute a read-only query') and a specific resource ('the remote Neon database'), going beyond the tool's generic name. It is unambiguous about the intended operation, though there are no sibling tools to differentiate from, so it falls just short of a full 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?

The term 'read-only' implies when the tool should be used, but no explicit guidance is given about when not to use it or what alternatives exist. With no sibling tools listed, the description provides the basic context but leaves the decision entirely to inference.

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