yearning_run_query

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds significant behavioral context: it only executes SELECT with no data modification, but it retains audit records and may cause resource overhead like full-table scans and lock contention, making it a 'submit operation' rather than a purely passive read. This enriches the annotation info without contradicting it.

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 main purpose is stated in a single, focused sentence. The additional note and API reference are structured and useful, though the API endpoint detail is slightly beyond core usage guidance. Overall, it is concise and well-organized.

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?

The description covers purpose, constraints, permissions, and side effects. The output schema handles return format details, so missing return value descriptions are not a gap. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning error scenarios, but it is adequate for a query execution 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?

Schema description coverage is 80%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description reinforces that SQL is read-only, but does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states it executes a read-only SELECT query and returns a result table. It uses specific verb+resource (execute query on specified data source) and distinguishes from sibling tools like sql_check and audit_orders, which serve different 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 clear context: it requires query permissions and must pass query review, and it explicitly notes this is a 'submit operation' with audit and resource overhead. It does not explicitly list alternative tools, but it gives enough context for an agent to understand when this tool is applicable.

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