Query Graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the primary safety profile. The description adds the 'SELECT' constraint, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose other traits like result format, query limits, or error handling. With good annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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, focused sentence of 8 words. It front-loads the key information (safe, read-only, SELECT SQL) without waste, earning every word.

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 schema and annotations, the description is fairly complete for a simple query tool. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., rows, count) or any limits on query size. This leaves a gap for the agent regarding expected output behavior.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions ('The SELECT SQL query string', 'Optional query parameter values', 'Optional project identifier'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it sits at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 verb ('Run') with a specific resource ('graph database') and a precise operation ('SELECT SQL queries'). It clearly distinguishes this from mutation or other query tools by emphasizing read-only and SQL SELECT semantics.

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 implies usage for executing SELECT SQL queries, and the read-only note suggests when it is appropriate (non-destructive analysis). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like natural_language_query or list_nodes, leaving the agent to infer when to choose this over alternatives.

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