data_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes outputs (stats, health score, PII detection, warnings) but does not explain how the table is specified (input schema has no parameters) or any side effects/requirements.

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 very concise—two sentences plus a tag—and front-loads the key purpose and trigger phrases. Every word earns its place.

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 siblings like pii_scan and detect_anomalies, the description helps differentiate this as a comprehensive profile tool. However, the empty input schema and lack of output schema leave ambiguity about how to specify the table, reducing completeness.

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 input schema has 0 parameters, so no parameter description is needed. Baseline score of 4 applies as per guidelines.

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 the tool produces a 'FULL data quality + compliance report' with specific outputs like per-column stats, health score, and PII detection. It distinguishes from siblings by combining quality and compliance, and explicitly mentions trigger phrases like 'profile' or 'quality report'.

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 usage guidance: 'Use this when the user says 'profile' or 'quality report' or mentions PII/compliance.' It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear and helpful.

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