run_secure_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well by disclosing: (1) the operation is read-only, and (2) all PII values in results will be automatically masked. This gives the agent critical behavioral expectations (e.g., don't expect unmasked PII in results). It does not cover edge cases like error handling or large result pagination, but for the information provided, this is a strong disclosure.

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?

Two sentences (33 words) with a clear action-first structure. Front-loads the primary purpose ('Execute a read-only SELECT database query') and follows with the key behavioral differentiator (PII masking). Every word contributes meaning; no filler.

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?

For a simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the operation, the constraint on input, and a key output transformation (masking). Additional details like error messages for invalid queries or rate limiting would be nice but are not critical for this complexity, and the behavioral notes alone elevate it above the norm.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by qualifying the query as 'read-only' and emphasizing the PII masking behavior, which affects result processing semantics beyond what the schema example shows. It could have gone further by specifying what happens with non-SELECT input (error vs. rejection).

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 action ('Execute a read-only SELECT database query') with a specific verb and resource, and the PII masking note explains what makes it 'secure.' This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools (unmask_text, add_to__roster) by making clear this is the querying tool that returns masked data.

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 when to use this tool (read-only data retrieval) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for write operations use X'). The sibling tools could offer more context, but no explicit comparison is provided. The read-only and SELECT constraints give some usage guardrails.

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