get_health_check

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds specific behavioral detail beyond that: it runs a SELECT 1 round-trip and reports server version. There is no contradiction and no misleading implication.

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 a single concise sentence with the primary purpose ('Check Impala connectivity') front-loaded, followed by the precise mechanism and returned information. No wasted words.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete for an agent to understand what this tool does and invoke it correctly. There is no missing behavioral or contextual information.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is high and the description need not explain parameters. The schema and annotation context cover this dimension fully.

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 names a specific action ('Check Impala connectivity') and a specific resource (Impala), with concrete details on what it does: SELECT 1 round-trip latency and server version. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling metadata/query tools.

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 clearly conveys that this tool is for checking Impala connectivity, which implies when it should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but among the sibling tools, none overlap with a health check, so the usage context is adequately clear.

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