db_execute_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, and it does so reasnably: it explicitly declares the operation read-only (safety profile) and specifies the returned data structure, which is valuable given there is no output schema. It discloses the allowed statement constraint, though that is also present in the schema. It does not cover error behavior for disallowed queries or prerequisites such as an active connection, but the core transparency needs are met.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler. The action and constraint are front-loaded, and the return information is delivered in a short follow-up sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, scope, safety, and return format. Minor gaps remain: it does not explain the relationship to sibling introspection tools (db_get_schema, db_get_tables) given that SHOW/DESCRIBE overlap with them, nor does it mention prerequisites like an established connection. These are notable but not blocking for correct invocation.

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%: sql, limit, and timeout each have descriptive schema text with defaults and ranges, so the description need not repeat parameter details. The description adds only marginal value beyond the schema, such as clarifying that limit controls rows through the mention of "rows" in the return format. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource — "Execute a read-only SQL query" — and immediately scopes it to SELECT, SHOW, DESCRIBE, and EXPLAIN. It also states the return shape (columns, rows, execution metadata), making the tool's function unambiguous. The read-only qualifier implicitly differentiates it from the sibling db_execute_write.

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 and the explicit list of allowed statement types give the agent a clear sense of when the tool applies (read queries) and when it does not (writes). However, it never names alternatives or states exclusions, so the agent must infer that db_execute_write handles mutations and that the db_get_* siblings may be preferable for schema/metadata inspection.

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