query_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively states the tool is 'read-only', which implies safety from mutations, and mentions return types and execution metrics, adding useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or database-specific constraints, which are important for a database query tool.

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 front-loaded and concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, constraints, and outputs without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 (database querying with multiple parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description does a good job by specifying the query type, database, and return data. However, it could be more complete by including details on output format, error responses, or connection requirements, which would help an agent use it more 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 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as query syntax examples or default values for optional parameters. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Execute a read-only SQL SELECT query') and resources ('against the Oracle database'), and distinguishes it from potential siblings by specifying it's for SELECT queries only. It explicitly mentions what it returns ('rows, column names, and execution metrics'), making the purpose unambiguous and comprehensive.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool by specifying 'read-only SQL SELECT query' and 'SELECT statements only', which implicitly guides usage for data retrieval rather than modifications. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like 'get_database_schema' for schema queries, leaving some room for improvement in sibling differentiation.

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