execute_query

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 states the tool is read-only and applies a row limit, which gives important safety and behavior context. However, it omits other behavioral details such as error behavior, database selection logic, or implications of the limit (e.g., what happens when exceeded). This is a moderate amount of transparency but not complete.

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 redundancy. It delivers the essential action and a key constraint efficiently. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.

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 query tool with an output schema, the description captures the core function. However, given no annotations and low parameter semantics, it falls short of full completeness. It does not mention parameterization, database routing, or any exception handling, leaving the agent to infer important details from the schema alone.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the 'limit' parameter via 'configured row limit'. The 'sql' parameter is implied by 'SQL query', but the 'database' parameter is entirely unexplained. With three parameters, this coverage is insufficient to make the tool safe and easy to invoke correctly.

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 'Execute a read-only SQL query with a configured row limit' clearly identifies the verb (execute), the resource (SQL query), and adds a distinguishing scope (read-only, row limit). This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_tables or explain_query that have more specific purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that general arbitrary queries go here, while specialized operations like listing schemas or explaining query plans should use their respective tools. There is no explicit 'use for X, not for Y' context.

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