✓ SAFE: Execute read-only SQL with params and pagination.

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

The description includes a safety hint 'SAFE' and mentions read-only, which is relevant since there are write/backup/drop tools. However, with no annotations, the description could disclose more behavioral aspects (e.g., enforces read-only, returns query results, may paginate results), but it only repeats the safety label and provides minimal context.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is also the same as the title without additional structured explanation. It is well-front-loaded with the safety flag, but it lacks detail, so it is efficient but not thorough, earning a 4 for brevity but not a 5 for value.

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 the tool's complexity (6 params, nested object, no output schema) and that the description repeats the title, it is incomplete. It does not describe return format (simple table, column names), error handling, or how pagination works, and it fails to mention that the query is SQL and is executed against a selected database, which is critical given siblings like open_database.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'params' and 'pagination' generically NN; it does not explain the purpose of 'verbosity' or 'database_name' beyond what schema hints, and does not clarify how 'params' are used for parameterized queries. It adds a little but not enough for a 6-param tool.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 annotations and no alternatives are provided; the description does not explain when to use this tool vs alternatives like execute_schema_query or list_tables or describe_table. It only says read-only, but it doesn't say 'use this for SELECT queries only' or 'use schema queries elsewhere'. The sibling list includes other query tools, but the description offers no guidance for choosing between them.

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