read_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses that the query runs inside a DB-level READ ONLY transaction for safety, which is critical behavioral context beyond just saying 'read-only'. It does not detail return format or error handling, but the transaction safety note adds meaningful value.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary action, and contains no superfluous words. Every phrase earns its place, including the safety qualifier.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately covers the core purpose and the key safety behavior (READ ONLY transaction). It falls short of explaining return structure or error behavior, but given the simplicity and the read-only guarantee, it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so per guidelines the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema: the 'sql' parameter is already described as 'The SQL SELECT query to execute', and 'limit' has its default and max documented. The description's emphasis on read-only does not alter parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('read-only SQL query'), and explicitly limits to SELECT, WITH, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling execute_query, which likely handles writes.

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 tool is explicitly described as read-only, making it clear it should be used for queries that do not modify data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only qualifier provides sufficient guidance compared to the execution-querysibling.

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