sql

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds a real prerequisite ('Requires sync first') not present in annotations, but says nothing about row limits, timeouts, cost, or what happens for invalid/non-SELECT queries.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then use case, then prerequisite. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 an open-ended SQL tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and the sync prerequisite. The main remaining gap is table/schema discovery guidance (which sibling to call to learn available tables and columns) before writing a query.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains the query string and the SELECT/WITH...SELECT restriction, so baseline is 3. 'Tables match resource names' is useful but duplicated in the schema, adding no new meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run read-only SQL against local database') plus the intended use case (ad-hoc analysis, aggregations, joins). It is clearly distinguishable from the CRUD-style siblings (author_get, book_get, review_get-shelf), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Use for ad-hoc analysis, aggregations, and joins across synced resources' gives clear positive guidance, and 'Requires sync first' states a prerequisite. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., the context tool for schema discovery) or when-not-to-use cases.

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