Lint SQL

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only and does not return data, and mentions optional EXPLAIN risk. However, with no annotations present, the description should provide more detail about side effects, errors, or performance implications. It gives basic behavioral intent but lacks depth.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key aspects. It is concise with no unnecessary words.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling set, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the lint output looks like or how parameters affect behavior. The agent would likely need additional information to use it effectively.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain any of the five parameters (sql, params, maxRows, profile, runExplain). Only 'runExplain' is hinted at via 'optional EXPLAIN risk'. The add minimal value, leaving the agent to guess parameter meanings.

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 that the tool lints read-only SQL for multiple aspects (policy, dialect, pagination, ordering, sensitive fields) and optionally checks EXPLAIN risk without returning data. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like ob_explain, ob_policy_explain, and ob_convert_sql_dialect.

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?

The description implies usage for read-only SQL linting without data return, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ob_explain for query plans or ob_policy_explain for policy analysis. No exclusions or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use.

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