gcfr_dataset_registered

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful behavior: date_from/date_to default to yesterday/today and ctl_id is optional. However, it doesn't describe side effects, read-only guarantees, error behavior, or response characteristics beyond what the output schema may show.

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 three tight sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 output schema covers return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. It covers purpose, reconciliation relevance, date defaults, and optional filtering, which is sufficient for a read-only query tool. The main gaps are parameter format details and explicit sibling differentiation, but they are not critical.

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 does explain defaults for date_from and date_to and notes ctl_id is optional, adding some meaning. But it doesn't clarify date formats, ctl_id semantics, or how each parameter affects the reconciliation output.

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 'Show' with a clear resource: 'source data sets registered for processing and their file extract status.' It also mentions Count_Source vs Count_Target reconciliation, which helps distinguish it from stream/process/load status siblings. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool, so it stops 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?

'Count_Source vs Count_Target reconciliation is here' gives clear context for when this tool is relevant. Date defaults and optional ctl_id filtering provide practical invocation guidance. It doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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