cdp_query_sql

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: it's 'read-only' (safety profile), uses 'GET with query in URL' (implementation detail), is 'Suitable for short queries' (performance constraint), and 'Only SELECT statements are supported' (functional limitation). However, it doesn't mention other potential behaviors like error handling, timeout limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 and well-structured: three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose (stating the core function, providing usage guidelines, and specifying constraints). There is zero wasted language, and key information is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place by adding critical context.

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 complexity (SQL execution), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core functionality, usage constraints, and behavioral traits like read-only nature and method. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. However, it could benefit from mentioning authentication or error scenarios for full 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?

The description adds no specific information about parameters beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining what 'query' or 'tenant_id' mean, their formats, or examples. However, since there are only 2 parameters and one is optional with a default, the baseline is 3 as the description doesn't actively mislead but adds no value.

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: 'Execute a read-only SQL query against the CDP data warehouse (Impala SQL) using GET with query in URL.' It specifies the action (execute), resource (SQL query against CDP data warehouse), technology (Impala SQL), and method (GET with query in URL). It also distinguishes from its sibling 'cdp_query_sql_post' by stating 'Suitable for short queries. For long queries, use cdp_query_sql_post instead.'

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'Suitable for short queries. For long queries, use cdp_query_sql_post instead.' It clearly states when to use this tool (short queries) and when to use an alternative (long queries), and specifies 'Only SELECT statements are supported,' which further guides appropriate usage. This directly addresses when-not-to-use scenarios.

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