ck_query_sql

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

The description complements the readOnlyHint annotation by confirming only SELECT queries are allowed, adding support for CTEs and listing tables, giving full behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single sentence conveys all essential information: allowed SQL type, rejection of other types, CTE support, and table names. Every word is productive.

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 simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description covers the necessary details: what SQL is accepted, what tables exist, and constraints. No gaps remain.

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?

The schema already describes the 'sql' parameter as 'A SELECT SQL statement', achieving 100% coverage. The description adds value by noting CTE support and available tables, going beyond the schema's brief description.

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', the resource 'raw SQL SELECT query', and specifies it's against the 'transactions database', distinguishing it from sibling tools that offer pre-built functions like filtering or aggregation.

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 explicitly states that non-SELECT statements are rejected and lists available tables, providing clear usage boundaries. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or mention when to prefer this tool over them.

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