query_database

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (dictionary) and prerequisite setup, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what error behavior to expect, or how the where_clause is interpreted beyond the example.

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 repetitive: the return statement and example appear twice verbatim. This wastes space and makes the description longer than necessary without adding new information.

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?

The core usage and prerequisites are covered, and the output schema removes the need to describe return values. However, the lack of explicit neptune_json_path explanation and the absence of guidance on when to use this versus siblings leave some gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains table_name and where_clause well, and the example shows how to pass neptune_json_path, but neptune_json_path is never explicitly described, leaving some ambiguity.

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 the tool queries a database resource for the current project, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_bucket_object and get_logs by focusing on database querying.

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?

Clear context is provided: the database must exist in neptune.json and be provisioned before querying. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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