sql_query_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states 'read-only,' which is a key safety property, and notes pagination, but it does not explain continuation tokens, ordering, or the relationship between multiple SQL parameters. This is a moderate level of transparency for a complex 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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no redundant or extraneous content. However, the extreme brevity leaves out useful details, preventing a perfect score.

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 high complexity (8 params, no annotations, no schema descriptions), the one-sentence description is inadequate. It does not explain how pagination is controlled, how the query parameter variants relate, or how the tool handles large result sets. The presence of an output schema helps but does not compensate for the missing operational context.

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 provides no parameter-level detail. With 8 parameters including sql, statement, query, page, continuation_token, params, order_by, and page_size, the description fails to clarify which are mutually exclusive, how pagination works, or what values are expected. This is a significant gap.

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 function: 'Run a read-only SQL query and return one page of results at a time.' It specifies the verb, the resource (SQL query), and a distinguishing feature (pagination). This also differentiates it from sibling tools like sql_query and sql_execute.

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 usage for read-only, paginated querying, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as sql_query or sql_execute. There is no mention of when not to use it or any exclusion criteria. The usage context is reasonable but relies on inference.

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