validate_sql

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'check whether' but does not describe what happens on validation failure (e.g., error vs. boolean return), whether the tool has side effects (it likely doesn't), or what the output structure looks like. The description is too sparse to convey behavioral expectations.

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 with no waste, but it is under-specified. It omits crucial details about validation behavior and output, making it too terse to be useful. While conciseness is valued, this goes beyond brevity into incompleteness.

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?

An output schema exists but its content is unknown, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, validation messages). For a validator, it's critical to know the result format and how failures are reported. The description lacks this context, making it incomplete for an agent to use 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?

The input schema has zero description coverage for the single 'sql' parameter. The description adds no information about the parameter's format, constraints, or examples. It merely mentions 'SQL' without elaborating on what constitutes a valid input, so the agent gets no additional semantic value beyond the parameter name.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('SQL'), and indicates it validates safety and read-only nature. However, it doesn't clarify what 'safe' or 'single' means precisely, nor does it distinguish itself from sibling tools like execute_readonly_sql. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this might be a pre-execution validation step for execute_readonly_sql, nor does it state any conditions or exclusions. The intended usage must be inferred by the agent.

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