get_validation_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the output shape (counts by status) and the optional source filter. The verbs 'Get' and 'Shows' imply a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no data is modified or discuss performance/data freshness. For a status-monitoring tool, this is mostly sufficient.

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 sentences: purpose, output details, and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, the key verb is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does, what data it presents, and when to use it. It names the decision action (process_raw_data), making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema describes the single parameter 'source' with 100% coverage ('Optional scraper source to filter by'). The description adds that results are 'broken down by source if specified', giving extra semantic meaning about the grouping behavior that goes beyond the schema.

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 'Get an overview of the validation pipeline status,' using a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the exact status categories shown (pending, in progress, validated, failed, skipped) and mentions source-based breakdown, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_raw_data_status or get_records_for_validation.

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 final sentence explicitly says 'Use this to monitor progress across multiple chatbots and decide when to run process_raw_data.' This provides a clear use case, ties to a sibling tool, and offers actionable guidance on when to invoke this tool.

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