athena_run_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: polling until SUCCEEDED/FAILED/CANCELLED, return payload contents, structured error codes, and the BYTES_CAP_EXCEEDED auto-cancel path. This gives the agent a strong model of side effects and error behavior.

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 dense but well organized: a summary paragraph, an error-behavior paragraph, and an Args list. Every sentence adds useful information, and the most important behavior is front-loaded.

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 polling query tool, the description covers invocation, parameter behavior, timeout handling, resumption path, success output, and failure modes. An output schema exists for the return value, so the description need not enumerate every response field, making this complete for selection and correct invocation.

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 explain all parameters, and it does: workspace_id, sql with a single-statement constraint, and max_wait_seconds with its default and timeout semantics. This goes well beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a SQL query against an Athena workspace' and clearly states the polling behavior and returned fields. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like athena_get_results and athena_get_execution_status.

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 explains that the query must be a single SQL statement and that multi-statement queries are rejected by the parser gate. It also tells the caller that if `max_wait_seconds` elapses they can resume with `athena_get_execution_status`, which provides useful routing guidance, though it stops short of explicitly contrasting with all sibling alternatives.

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