yearning_run_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: it may cause resource overhead (full table scan, lock contention), retains audit logs, and is considered a 'submission operation' rather than pure passive read. This goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Description is concise with three sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by important behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects (read-only, audit, overhead) and prerequisites. It mentions the output is a result table. While it does not detail error handling or pagination, the annotations and schema fill some gaps. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool.

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?

Input schema already describes all parameters with sufficient detail (e.g., sql: '查询 SQL（仅 SELECT...）', limit: '返回行数上限...'). The description does not add new parameter meanings beyond what is in the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it executes a read-only SELECT query on a specified data source and returns a result table. The verb 'execute' and resource 'query' are specific. It distinguishes itself from siblings like yearning_sql_check and yearning_submit_query_order by emphasizing it directly runs SELECT queries.

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 mentions requirements (permissions and audit) and notes that the tool is read-only but has resource overhead. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. There is no mention of sibling tools or exclusion criteria.

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