sql_format

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly identifies a formatting operation and mentions the PRO/free-trial constraint, but it does not describe the return value, behavior on invalid SQL, or handling of unsupported dialects. Core behavior is clear, but operational details are missing.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds a concise trial constraint. Every part is relevant, and there is no redundant restatement of schema fields or annotations.

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 low-complexity formatter with two documented parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explicitly state that the tool returns the formatted SQL string or how errors are surfaced. These are moderate gaps given the lack of structured output information.

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 provides full documentation for both parameters, including the dialect enum and the default note. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Format and prettify SQL queries'. The additional detail about 'proper indentation and clause separation' makes the tool's function concrete and clearly distinguishes it from unrelated siblings like json_format or regex.

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 intended use is implied by the description, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Since none of the sibling tools offer SQL formatting, the description is not actively misleading, yet it leaves routing decisions entirely to inference.

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