explain_analyze_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It explains the return value as 'Dict with engine_id, engine_type, statement, analysis, and full response', which is transparent. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, its safety profile, or any potential side effects. The mention of query failure hints at error handling but is incomplete.

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 well-structured with a concise opening sentence followed by a clear arg/return format. It is front-loaded with the purpose. While the arg details are necessary, they add some length; still, every sentence serves a purpose.

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 the tool's inputs, outputs, and a troubleshooting tip. Given the absence of annotations and the need to explain 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, it is mostly complete. It could further clarify if the tool has any side effects or is purely analytical, but this is a minor gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context to all parameters: engine_id ('Presto or Prestissimo engine identifier'), statement (with troubleshooting tip), engine_type (values and default), and verbose ('Include detailed statistics'). This goes well beyond the minimal schema.

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's purpose: 'Get detailed query analysis with execution statistics'. It identifies the resource (query analysis) and the action. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'explain_query' tool, which likely has a similar but possibly less detailed purpose.

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 a helpful usage tip: 'If query fails, consider using fully qualified table names (catalog.schema.table)'. But it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'explain_query', and does not specify any prerequisites or contexts where the tool is most appropriate.

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