query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'read-only' matches them without contradiction. The 'bounded' qualifier adds a small signal that query limits apply, but the description does not disclose query semantics, allowed SQL statements, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no filler words. However, 'Query;' largely repeats the tool name, and the fragment structure leaves out useful segmentation that a fuller description could provide.

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?

This is a generic query tool with 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, yet the entire description is one short phrase. It leaves SQL dialect, return shape, pagination semantics, accepted statement types, and relationship to sibling tools unexplained, so it is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 mention sql, limit, offset, or parameters at all. The agent is left to infer what the required 'sql' string should contain, how 'parameters' bind, and how limit/offset behave.

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 phrase 'bounded read-only archive retrieval' identifies the domain (archive) and the general action (retrieval), so the description is not empty. However, it reads as a noun phrase rather than a concrete statement of what the tool executes, and it does not mention SQL or distinguish this tool from siblings like 'search' or 'get_record'.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. 'Read-only' implies the tool is safe for retrieval, but it does not explain why an agent should choose this tool over the sibling tools such as search, describe_schema, or get_record.

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