db_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses synchronous execution, server-side access-profile gating of read-only vs read-write, and that an INSERT through a read-only profile errors at the platform. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence action, a short behavioral note, and an args list. No filler or redundant text.

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 two-parameter execution tool with an output schema present, the description includes the essential behavioral facts and parameter meanings. It lacks explicit differentiation against sibling query tools, but everything needed to call it correctly is present.

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%, but the Args block supplies meaningful descriptions for both parameters: connection_id is identified as the DB Console connection id, and sql is restricted to a single statement. This materially improves over bare type-only schema fields.

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 specific verb ('Run'), resource ('a SQL statement'), and context ('against a SQL Console connection'), and notes synchronous execution. This clearly distinguishes db_query from sibling tools like athena_run_query or db_describe_schema.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer db_query over athena_run_query or other query-related siblings, leaving the selection to inference.

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