data_quality_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral nuance: 'Surfaces the MH-12-7781 / OPS-2207 handoff text as a policy question without applying a hidden on-time override.' This clarifies that the tool does not silently alter results. It could add more about side effects or authentication, but as a reporting tool the read-only nature is evident.

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 four sentences, each contributing unique value: the purpose, the explanation of exclusions, the policy question, and the explicit 'no hidden override' behavior. It is front-loaded with the core function 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 read-only reporting tool, the description explains what it does and why, including a specific edge case (the handoff policy question). It omits parameter guidance, which is a gap, but the output schema exists and the overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. A 5 would require richer detail on when to use it relative to siblings.

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% and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (route, device_id, late_threshold_min). It provides no insight into how these optional filters affect the report. Since the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation, the agent must rely solely on parameter names.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Report quarantined trips, reasons, and policy notes.' It sharply distinguishes from siblings by focusing on quarantined/excluded rows rather than on-time metrics or late trips. The second sentence reinforces this scope by explicitly stating it explains excluded rows and why.

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 clear usage context: this tool is for understanding data quality exclusions from OTP metrics. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, but the contrast is implicit. There is no explicit exclusionary guidance ('use this instead of X'), so it stops short of a 5.

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