gcfr_load_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does so by noting the default business_date behavior, optional ctl_id filter, and the read-only 'Show/verify' nature, though it does not explicitly say 'read-only'.

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?

Three short sentences each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second gives the usage scenario, and the third captures defaults and filters. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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 low-complexity read tool with an output schema and optional parameters, the description is nearly sufficient: it covers purpose, use case, defaulting, and filtering. Only a brief mention of date format or control-ID meaning would make it fully 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining business_date's default-to-today behavior and ctl_id's optional filtering role. It does not specify date formats or ctl_id value domains, but both parameters are functionally clear.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Show which staging tables loaded successfully for a business date, with row counts.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling status/stat tools about streams or processes.

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?

It explicitly gives a use case: 'Use this to verify all expected feeds have arrived.' It does not list exclusions or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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