assess_data_quality

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the purpose—it does not explain what 'cautions' entails or how the summary is structured. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 very concise with no wasted words. However, it is too brief given the tool's complexity, sacrificing necessary details for brevity. A few more sentences would improve completeness without harming conciseness.

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?

The description lacks context about the output (which has an output schema) and the interplay of filters. Despite having many parameters, no explanation of how they are used together is provided. The tool's complexity demands more descriptive context.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description only mentions 'indicator/filter' but does not explain any of the 9 parameters, such as geography filters or year range. This is a critical gap.

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 ('Summarize') and the resource ('metadata, availability, and cautions for an indicator/filter'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'data_availability' and 'get_indicator_metadata' by combining these aspects.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, if only metadata is needed, 'get_indicator_metadata' might be more appropriate; if only availability, use 'data_availability'. No such context is given.

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