query_build

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It never states whether the tool executes the generated query or only produces SQL text, whether a database connection is required, or what an empty/malformed description yields. This ambiguity is meaningful for a query tool, especially in the absence of any safety annotations.

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 with the purpose up front and a useful, concrete example. No wasted words. It loses one point only because it forgoes any sibling differentiation or usage note that the space could afford.

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 3-param generation tool with full schema coverage, the description conveys the core function adequately. However, it omits the execution-vs-generation distinction and the output shape (what exactly the tool returns), which is not covered by an output schema. This is a moderate gap for an un-annotated tool.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's example only illustrates the 'description' parameter and adds no additional semantics for dialect or schema_hint beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies since the schema 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 states a clear, specific operation: build SQL from natural language descriptions, and the example makes the behavior concrete. It is implicitly distinguishable from siblings (sql_format, sql_explain, schema_analyze, migration_generate all operate on existing SQL/schema, not generate from prose), but it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any sibling. It does not state use cases, exclusions, or mention that sql_format/sql_explain are better suited for handling existing SQL text. The reader must infer the intended usage from the purpose alone.

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