get_data_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does (gets a profile) without mentioning potential side effects like full table scans, sampling behavior, or performance implications. The phrase 'quality metrics' gives a hint but lacks detail on what exactly is computed or returned.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and 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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context about what the profile includes and how the tool behaves. It only mentions 'quality metrics' generically, leaving ambiguity around output structure, sampling, and edge cases. The guidance is insufficient for an agent to invoke it effectively alongside many similar sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning about how parameters like sampleSize interact with the tool's behavior. It stays at the baseline for schema-covered tools.

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 gets a data profile for a table, and specifies it includes quality metrics, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_table (structure) and get_table_statistics (statistics). This is a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 implies the tool is for profiling tables with quality metrics, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like analyze_table or validate_data_integrity. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so the guidance is only implied.

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