qlty_rowsWithMissingValues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the tool is known safe. The description adds value by clarifying it returns actual rows (not summaries) and that the persist parameter materializes results as a volatile table, which is useful behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and usage guidelines. It is concise but includes a redundant argument list that echoes the schema; while not verbose, it could be slightly tighter.

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?

Given no output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers the tool's return type (rows), persist behavior, and usage context. It does not explicitly detail the output format when persist is false, but the overall picture is complete for common use.

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 100%; all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description repeats this information in a bullet list without adding new semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 clearly states it retrieves actual rows with missing values in a specified column. It explicitly contrasts with sibling tools base_readQuery and qlty_missingValues, making the tool's unique purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit when-to-use (user wants to see/fetch rows with null values) and when-not-to-use (do not write SQL, do not use for column summary). It names specific alternatives (base_readQuery, qlty_missingValues), leaving no ambiguity.

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