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

The description discloses its heuristic nature and limitation of not being a full parser. However, with no annotations, it lacks detail on additional behaviors such as whether it modifies data or requires specific permissions. The disclosure is adequate but minimal.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, no redundant information, and the key caveat is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple tool with one input and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and a limitation. However, it does not specify what the output looks like (e.g., list of issues, boolean), which could be helpful for completeness.

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% with only one parameter 'text'. The description adds meaning by explaining that the text should be SQL code to scan for dangerous patterns, which is sufficient for a single string parameter.

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 tool scans SQL text for dangerous patterns like DROP/TRUNCATE/DELETE without WHERE. It uses specific verbs and resources, and the heuristic nature distinguishes it from more comprehensive SQL tools among siblings.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like sql_format or sql_tables_extract. The mention of 'best-effort/heuristic' implies limitations but doesn't direct the agent to alternative tools for more thorough analysis.

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