query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the critical read-only trait, which is essential for an agent to know this tool will not mutate data. It says nothing about return shape, SQL restrictions beyond read-only, error behavior, or permission requirements, so transparency is partial rather than complete.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The key behavioral qualifier 'read-only' is front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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 three required parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. An agent still lacks clarity about the 'library' parameter, whether results are returned in a specific format, and what SQL constructs are allowed beyond the read-only restriction.

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% and the description adds little to parameter meaning beyond what the parameter names already imply. 'sql' and 'table' are self-explanatory, but 'library' remains ambiguous and there is no guidance on how the three parameters relate or what format the SQL should follow.

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 action—querying tables via DuckDB SQL—and explicitly marks it as read-only, which distinguishes it from upsert_rows. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast its scope with list/get_schema tools, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 read-only qualifier implies this tool is for SELECT-style data retrieval and not for modifications, giving some usage direction. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over list_libraries, list_tables, or get_schema, leaving the routing mostly to inference from the tool name and siblings.

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