query

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only, rejects writes, and caps results at max_rows (1-1000). These behavioral traits go beyond the input schema, which has no annotations. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise (4 lines) with a clear structure: purpose first, then constraints, then parameter explanations. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what query types are allowed, row limit, parameter defaults, and rejection of writes. It is fully adequate for correct invocation.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description provides meaningful explanations for both parameters: 'sql' is 'A single SELECT or WITH statement' and 'max_rows' is 'Maximum number of rows to return (1-1000, default 100).' This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 'Run a READ-ONLY SQL query (a single SELECT or WITH statement) and return the rows.' It specifies the verb (run), resource (SQL query), and distinguishes from siblings (describe_table, list_tables) by focusing on querying data. No ambiguity.

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 explicitly states 'Writes are rejected,' guiding the agent not to use for write operations. While it does not mention sibling tools by name, the context provides them, and the read-only nature implies alternative uses. Could be improved by stating 'For describing tables, use describe_table.'

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