sql_query

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself, and it does explicitly: 'read-only', 'SELECT only', max rows, timeout, and Pro plan requirement. It also explains why description/summary columns are unavailable, adding valuable context. It lacks error-handling or rate-limit details but is quite transparent overall.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then structured into schema, limits, and arguments. The column list is long but necessary for a SQL interface, and each sentence contributes useful info. It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 tool's complexity and lack of annotations, the description supplies the full schema, constraints, and argument semantics, which is essential for invoking SQL correctly. It even explains the absence of certain columns, providing operational depth. With an output schema present, this is sufficiently complete, though examples of query syntax are absent.

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 description compensates for 0% schema coverage by explaining that the query must use table name 'das' and that params are for SQL %s placeholders. It enumerates all available columns, giving full meaning to the parameters beyond the bare schema types. This is valuable operational guidance.

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 begins with 'Run a read-only SQL query against DA records', which clearly states a specific verb and resource. It also lists the exact table and columns, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_das or get_da that use different retrieval methods. The addition of 'Pro plan only' is a constraint, not a clouding of purpose.

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—any time SQL is needed against DA records—but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. It provides clear operational constraints like row limits and timeout, but no alternative recommendations, so guidance is mostly implied.

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