athena_get_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well: it discloses the page size (1000 rows), the pagination mechanism via next_token, and the required execution state (SUCCEEDED). It does not mention failure modes or error behavior, but the output schema covers return structure.

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 compact and front-loaded. The core behavior is stated in one clear sentence, and the parameter details are presented in a straightforward structured list without redundancy or filler.

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 provides everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: the source execution, the page size, the optional token, and parameter explanations. The presence of an output schema covers return-value expectations, so no additional return-format details are required.

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%, but the description's Args section compensates by explaining execution_id as 'The Athena execution id' and, more importantly, clarifying next_token as an 'Optional page token returned by a previous call.' This adds meaningful pagination semantics beyond the schema's bare type/title/default.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a precise resource (result rows from an Athena execution), and a concrete behavioral detail ('next 1000-row page'). It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like athena_run_query (starts a query) and athena_get_execution_status (checks status) by narrowing scope to results of a SUCCEEDED execution.

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 gives a clear precondition ('from a SUCCEEDED execution') and explains the pagination flow via next_token. It does not explicitly name alternatives like athena_get_execution_status for checking whether an execution succeeded, but the intended usage context is strongly implied and unambiguous.

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