data_profile_dataset

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds useful context about routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope. It does not explain why a profiling action is destructive or open-world, but the bar is lower because annotations already carry the safety profile.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then routing context, then parameter definitions. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema defaults.

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 generic domain-agent dispatcher with an output schema and annotations present, this is minimally viable. The main gap is the missing profile_dataset action contract: what message objectives are appropriate and what structured inputs the action accepts. This makes the definition incomplete for an agent that needs to construct a valid invocation.

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 defines message as a free-text objective and inputs as an optional JSON string of structured inputs, which is more informative than the bare property names. It still does not specify the expected structured input shape for profile_dataset, but for a generic dispatch tool this is acceptable.

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 opening sentence specifies a concrete verb ('Run') and an exact resource ('data domain agent action profile_dataset'), so an agent knows what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like data_analyze_dataset or dispatch_domain_agent, and it never explains what profiling a dataset actually entails.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as data_analyze_dataset, dispatch_domain_agent, or other data_* tools. The routing and scope context is useful but is not usage direction; no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative selection conditions are provided.

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