driverfile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the load. It transparently states the tool produces CSV text containing driver, item, due date, status, and chase history, which constitutes the relevant behavioral/return information for a zero-parameter export read. It does not mention any caveats like pagination or limits, but none are implied for an export of a file report.

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?

A single sentence that names the action, resource, format, and content, with no filler or redundant phrase. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter export tool, the description is complete: it specifies the operation, the output type (CSV text), and exactly which data columns the report contains. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently covers what the agent needs to expect.

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 4 per the rubric; the description correctly omits any parameter details. Nothing more is needed here.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export'), names the exact resource ('driver qualification file report'), and states the output format ('CSV text') plus included fields. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_dq_summary or search_dq_items, which imply retrieved views rather than a full CSV export.

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 word 'full' implies this is for getting the complete DQ report rather than summaries or filtered items, but the description never explicitly says when to use it versus siblings or when not to use it. The intended context is implied but not stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of revealing behavior. It only shows what the summary contains, not whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires special permissions. The verb 'Get' implies a read, but that's not explicit.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence efficiently captures the tool's purpose and output categories. There is no filler and every clause adds content.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it enumerates the returned summary categories. However, it lacks details like data ordering, pagination, or any edge cases—though none are likely for a count summary.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to provide parameter semantics and does not add anything beyond what the schema already states.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get the driver qualification file summary' and enumerates the included totals. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_items_due or export_dq_report, but the focus on summary totals is reasonably distinguishable.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_items_due or export_dq_report. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditional usage directions.

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

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

The description implies a read-only operation via 'List' and discloses a default look-ahead window of 30 days. However, it does not explicitly state that it does not modify data, nor does it mention any authorization or rate-limit requirements. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partially fulfills it.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and default behavior. However, it does not describe the return format or clarify when to use this tool instead of search_dq_items, which is a notable gap given the sibling tools.

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 schema already fully documents the 'days' parameter with its description and default. The description merely repeats this information, adding no new meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'DQ file items' with a time scope and example item types. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'coming due' which is different from search or summary.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_dq_items or get_dq_summary. It does not state conditions for choosing this tool or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool reports missing or out-of-date items, implies a read-only list operation, and explicitly states severity ordering. It does not mention potential side effects or data freshness, but for a zero-parameter list tool these are minimal gaps.

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 well-structured sentence followed by a clarifying clause. It front-loads the core functionality, then adds the DOT-compliance framing and the ordering detail. Every phrase earns its place with no redundant or vague language.

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 simple, zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential 'what' and 'why'. It could go further by describing the output fields or whether the list is paginated, but the domain context and clear subject matter make the tool usable without that detail.

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 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none is needed; the ordering note ('Most serious first') is behavioral rather than parameter-related.

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 verb ('List'), a precise resource ('driver qualification file items'), and a clear condition ('missing or out of date'). It adds context by equating these to DOT compliance review findings and specifies ordering ('Most serious first'). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like search_dq_items or get_items_due.

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 provides a clear context for use: when you need to identify items that would be findings in a DOT compliance review today. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'today' phrasing signals a current-snapshot use case, and the domain-specific wording makes the intended scenario obvious.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does that reasonably well: it names the return contents ('due date and status'), enumerates the status vocabulary ('in file, to file, missing, out of date'), and implies a read-only search operation. It does not mention sorting, pagination, or exact match behavior, but these are minor for a straightforward search tool.

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 compact sentences convey the search criteria and the returned data. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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 single-parameter search tool with a well-documented schema, the description covers what the tool searches and what it returns. It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling report/summary tools, but the core usage context is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single query parameter, including case-insensitivity and shorthand support. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Search'), the resource ('driver qualification file items'), and the available search criteria ('driver name or item type'). It also describes the output (matching records with due date and status), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like export_dq_report or list_audit_risks, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 when to use it—whenever you need to find DQ items by driver name or item type—but it never explicitly contrasts it with the sibling tools. There's no 'use X instead when...' guidance, so an agent must infer the boundary between this search tool and the reporting/summary siblings. That's adequate but not explicit.

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