validate_data_integrity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, yet it only lists what checks are performed. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies data, what its return format looks like, or any permission/performance implications. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely produces a diagnostic report.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the core function and scope. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to compensate by explaining return values, usage context, or side effects. It fails to do so, leaving a critical gap for an agent to understand what the tool actually returns or how to interpret results. The description covers only the basic purpose, not enough for a complex validation operation.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions covering their meaning and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description's parenthetical mentions the same concepts (FK, duplicates, nulls) without adding new information. It slightly aids in mapping parameters to the tool's purpose but does not go 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 clearly states the tool validates data integrity for a table, listing specific check types (FK violations, duplicates, null violations). This provides a specific verb, resource, and scoped purpose that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_data_profile or analyze_table, which focus on broader analysis.

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 primary use case—validating integrity issues before trust issues arise—but provides no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, nor does it name alternatives for related tasks. It gives enough context that an agent could infer usage, but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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