query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool executes SQL queries but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only or destructive, authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or return format. For a query execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, scoring a 2.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with two concise sentences that earn their place: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. There is zero waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured, scoring a 5.

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?

Given the complexity of executing SQL queries, no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects, return values, error handling, and specific constraints. For a tool that could involve data manipulation or complex operations, this is inadequate, scoring a 2.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (sql and database) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as query syntax examples or database context details. Baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, and this meets that threshold.

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 tool's purpose as 'Execute any MindsDB SQL query', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'custom queries not covered by other tools', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation, warranting a 4.

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 clear context for usage: 'Use this for custom queries not covered by other tools', which implies when to use it versus alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, so it's not fully explicit. This is good guidance but not exhaustive, scoring a 4.

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