get_slow_query_records

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful runtime context: the default backing log, the Impala 4.2+/CDP prerequisite, and the available filters. This is meaningful behavioral information beyond the annotations, though it stops short of detailing ordering or default result 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 two sentences, front-loads the core behavior and source, and has no filler or repeated schema information.

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 read-only retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what data is queried, the source and version requirement, and the main filters. Minor gaps such as result ordering and filter semantics do not prevent a capable agent from invoking it correctly.

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. It explains the purpose of time_range_hours and min_duration_ms as filters, but does not clarify the limit parameter, whether the filters can be combined, or whether thresholds are inclusive.

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 returns recent/slow queries from a specific Impala log, and the source (sys.impala_query_log) differentiates it from the sibling metadata tools. It lacks an explicit main verb, but the tool name plus resource makes the operation unambiguous.

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 implies the usage context—querying the Impala workload-management log for slow/recent queries—and names the relevant filter parameters. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as query or explain_query, nor give exclusions.

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