sql_query

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait of being read-only, which is important for safety. However, no annotations exist, and the description does not mention behavior around parameter precedence, query execution limits, or error handling, leaving gaps beyond the read-only hint.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the tool's core purpose.

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 there are four parameters, no annotations, and a complex set of sibling query-related tools, the description is too minimal. The read-only note and database mention help, but the lack of parameter guidance and tool-comparison context makes the overall definition incomplete for reliable use.

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% and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (sql, query, params, statement). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema lists, leaving the agent uncertain whether sql/query/statement are aliases or how params should be used.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('FairCom database') while explicitly noting the read-only nature, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool sql_execute. This is a clear, specific purpose statement.

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 like sql_execute or sql_query_page. The description only states what it does, not the context that differentiates it from siblings.

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