run_readonly_sql

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'guarded read-only', which suggests safety, but 'guarded' is vague and does not disclose what exactly is guarded (e.g., only SELECT allowed, blocking DDL/DML). No mention of authentication, rate limits, or side effects.

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 a single, direct sentence that states the action and return value. It is concise and front-loaded, with no waste. However, it is under-specified for a SQL tool, so while concise, it sacrifices necessary detail.

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?

With no annotations and a bare-bones description, the agent receives insufficient context for a tool with 3 parameters and safety implications. The output schema exists but is not described. The description is too sparse to fully guide correct invocation, especially regarding query safety and parameter handling.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter information. The schema lists 'query', 'limit', and 'params', but the description does not clarify 'params' (e.g., positional vs named) or how the limit works. It relies entirely on the schema, which has minimal descriptions.

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 ('Run') and resource ('read-only SQL query'), and mentions that it returns columns and rows. It distinguishes itself from the specialized sibling tools by being a generic SQL interface. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from tools like list_transactions, though the SQL nature is clear.

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 alternatives. The phrase 'guarded read-only' implies a safety constraint but not when to prefer this over specialized list tools. It lacks any exclusions or explicit alternative recommendations.

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