query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the critical behavioral trait: enforcement of read-only statements. It says nothing about result size limits, row caps, pagination, or how violations are reported (error vs. rejection), which are the remaining questions an agent has before calling.

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?

Front-loaded and short, but the second sentence verbatim repeats the parenthetical in the first, and the 'Args: sql: The SQL query to execute.' block restates the schema with zero added meaning. Roughly half the text is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a single-parameter read-only query tool, the essential facts — what it runs and what statement types are legal — are present, and the redundant arg block, while unhelpful, does not leave a functional gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single sql parameter. It adds only the allowed statement vocabulary, which does help constrain what to pass, but 'The SQL query to execute' is a tautology that supplies no syntax, dialect, or formatting guidance.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (Execute), a specific resource (SQL query), and enumerates the permitted statement classes (SELECT / SHOW / DESCRIBE / EXPLAIN). The read-only framing implicitly distinguishes it from the write-capable execute_sql sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 read-only restriction is stated twice and clearly excludes INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE/DDL, which is real when-not guidance. However, it never points the agent to execute_sql for the excluded write case, leaving the alternative to inference from sibling names.

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