athena_get_execution_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Poll a single tick' reasonably implies a lightweight, non-destructive read that returns one status snapshot, which covers the safety profile. It does not disclose what the status values mean or how a caller should act on the response, though those are at least partially captured by the output schema.

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?

Two sentences plus one parameter line, with the usage trigger front-loaded before the args. Zero wasted words; every sentence earns its place for a single-parameter poll tool.

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 1-parameter poll tool with an output schema (which relieves the description of return-format duties), this is nearly complete. The gaps are the narrow trigger framing and the missing pointer to athena_get_results as the follow-up once status shows completion, both of which an agent must infer from sibling names.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; 'The Athena execution id' does add the basic semantic that this identifies a prior Athena query. It is, however, thin — it does not say where the ID comes from (the response of athena_run_query), which an agent would benefit from knowing to populate the parameter correctly.

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 verb 'poll' with 'a single tick' names the action and resource clearly — return one execution-status check for an Athena query. It reads as distinct from athena_run_query and athena_cancel, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from athena_get_results, a close sibling that an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

'Use when athena_run_query timed out' gives a concrete trigger condition tied to a named sibling. This is explicit and actionable. However, it frames a single narrow scenario and does not mention the broader legitimate use (polling status of any in-flight query) or the natural alternative/follow-up (athena_get_results once complete).

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