execute_sql_query

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'execute', which implies both read and write operations, but does not mention side effects, transaction safety, error behavior, or permissions. This is insufficient for a powerful SQL execution 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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words, but it is overly terse for a tool that executes arbitrary SQL. It could include essential context without being verbose, so it is acceptable but not excellent.

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 complexity of SQL execution (potential for data modification, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error handling, query types allowed, and safety considerations.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (query and parameters), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Execute' and the resource 'SQL query against the MS SQL Server database', making the purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like describe_table or list_tables, but the action is fundamentally different so no explicit differentiation is critical.

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, nor any caution about using SQL queries that modify data. The description lacks any contextual advice that would help an agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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