query

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds concrete behavioral detail: accepted statement families, 'return columns+rows', and the important ALLOW_WRITE_SQL=true caveat that the read-only guarantee is conditional on server configuration. It does not cover error handling or resource limits, but these are secondary given the output schema and annotations.

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 dense sentences with the primary action and scope front-loaded, followed by the safety caveat. The parenthesized list of SQL forms is long but earns its place by defining valid input boundaries.

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 two-parameter query tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description provides the essential behavioral contract including the write-safety caveat. The only notable omission is explicit semantics for max_rows, but the parameter is simple enough that an agent can likely infer it.

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 carry parameter meaning; it usefully constrains the sql parameter to SELECT/SHOW/DESCRIBE/EXPLAIN/WITH...SELECT/bare SET. However, it never mentions max_rows, leaving the second parameter's row-limiting behavior to inference from its title and default value.

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 specifies a concrete verb and resource: 'Execute a read-only SQL statement ... against Apache Impala'. It enumerates accepted statement forms and states the return shape, clearly distinguishing this general query tool from the specialized get_* siblings and explain_query.

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 allowed SQL statement types and the DDL/DML block provide implicit usage boundaries, so an agent can infer it is meant for ad-hoc read-only queries. However, it never names alternatives or explicitly says when to prefer specialized siblings such as explain_query or get_table_preview.

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