fusion_validate_query

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior: the lexical-substitution failure mode with ORA-00903, all expectations always evaluated, diff interpretation, join fan-out, and row-level security visibility. It also discloses the limitation that passing only proves consistency with supplied ground truth.

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 dense but front-loaded, with the core purpose and key constraint in the first line. Each paragraph earns its place, and the final Args bullet list gives a scannable parameter reference without padding.

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, the description covers when to use it, failure modes, diagnostic interpretation, and limitations. An output schema exists for response details, so the description's focus on selection and interpretation is appropriately 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?

The input schema provides no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the Args section explains every parameter, including mutual exclusivity of expectations and fixture, the meaning of datasource as a configured key, max_rows as a cap above expected count, and timeout_s as per-call timeout. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Validate free SQL', and immediately differentiates itself from fusion_validate_report ('same engine... pointed at a statement instead of a registered report'). It clearly establishes this tool validates ad hoc SQL rather than registered reports.

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?

It gives an explicit condition for use ('ONLY on a pod that substitutes lexical parameters') and names the alternative ('Use fusion_validate_report instead there'). It also explains when the tool applies ('Where free SQL does run') and how to distinguish failure modes.

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