query

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the read-only nature, query type restrictions, row capping at 1000, parameter binding method, schema selection options, and CTE limitations. However, it doesn't mention error handling, performance characteristics, or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 efficiently structured with four sentences that each add critical information: purpose and restrictions, schema usage, result capping, and parameter/CTE details. There's no wasted text, and the most important constraints (read-only, SELECT-only) are front-loaded.

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 query tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good context about behavioral constraints and usage patterns. It covers the essential 'what happens when invoked' aspects but doesn't describe the return format or error responses, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about the schema parameter ('choose which database to run against') and params array ('Pass parameters via the `params` array using ? placeholders'), but doesn't provide significant additional semantic value beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 verb ('Run a read-only SELECT query') and resource ('against the local FO MySQL database'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'execute' by explicitly stating this is for read-only SELECT queries only, not for other SQL operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Only single SELECT statements are allowed') and when not to use it ('INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE, and DDL are rejected'). It also mentions an alternative approach ('use fully-qualified table names') and specifies version limitations ('CTEs are not supported in v1'), giving comprehensive usage context.

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