peaka_execute_sql_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: querying uncached tables yields limited results and can 'run forever,' which justifies the LIMIT instruction. This performance/limitation disclosure is valuable, though it does not mention response format, errors, or timeouts.

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 long but every section earns its place: the one-line purpose statement is front-loaded, and the numbered pre-flight checklist is scannable and actionable. The organization (purpose → prerequisites → fallbacks → projectId workflow) is logical and easy for an agent to follow.

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?

With no output schema and only two required parameters, the dominant complexity is the cache-detection and project-selection workflow, which is covered exhaustively. The absence of any mention of result format is a minor gap for a SQL query tool, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 50%: projectId is documented in the schema, but the query parameter has no schema description. The description partially compensates by explaining how to obtain projectId (call peaka_list_projects, ask the user, remember it for later calls), but it adds nothing about the query parameter's format, dialect, or limitations — a real gap for the tool's primary input.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb ('Runs'), the resource ('the given sql query'), and the target ('Peaka'), which clearly conveys this executes raw SQL. It does not explicitly differentiate from the closely named sibling peaka_execute_query (which likely runs a saved query), so the distinction is left to inference rather than stated.

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 'BEFORE RUNNING THIS TOOL' section provides explicit sequential guidance: pull project metadata first, check isCached via peaka_list_tables, route to the create cache tool when tables are cacheable but uncached, and warn with LIMIT fallback if caching is rejected. It also names peaka_list_projects for projectId discovery, giving clear when-to-use context and named alternatives.

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