execute_readonly_sql

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the query is bounded and restricted to SELECT/WITH constructs, which strongly implies no mutation, but it does not describe failure behavior, pagination, or the exact effect of the limit.

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?

One clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: the action, the SQL constraint, and the target database are all present.

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 tool is simple, has an output schema, and only two parameters, so the description covers many essentials. But it leaves multi-dimensional gaps open: no mention of the synthetic environment, how validate_sql fits, or what constitutes a 'bounded' query in terms of the actual limit.

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 only mentions 'bounded', which hints at the limit parameter, but it doesn't explain the sql parameter content, the role of limit, or how limits are applied. This is minimal additional meaning over the raw schema.

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 names the specific action ('Execute'), the resource ('synthetic database'), and the exact SQL scope ('SELECT or WITH'), which clearly differentiates it from siblings such as validate_sql and get_database_schema. The read-only intent is explicit and tied to the query type.

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 the appropriate usage context: run a bounded, read-only SELECT/WITH query against the synthetic database. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like validate_sql for pre-flight validation.

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