execute_sql

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the query is read-only, which is a key behavioral trait, but doesn't cover other aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'return results' entails (e.g., format, pagination). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information (execute, read-only, return results) with zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's complexity (SQL execution with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and read-only nature, but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral constraints, or integration with siblings. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more context would be helpful for safe and effective 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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'SQL query' which relates to the 'query' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'database' parameter or provide any additional semantic context beyond what's inferred from parameter names. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal value over the bare schema.

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 verb ('execute') and resource ('SQL query'), specifying it's read-only and returns results. It distinguishes from potential siblings like 'get_table_schema' or 'list_tables' by focusing on query execution rather than metadata retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'reload_config' is unrelated).

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 executing SQL queries, particularly read-only ones, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_tables' for metadata or specify prerequisites. It mentions 'read-only' which hints at when not to use it for write operations, but lacks detailed alternatives or exclusions.

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