dq_generate_checks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses no side effects, file writes, overwrite behavior, authentication requirements, or return values; 'Generate' alone does not convey what actually happens.

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 concise at five words, but it is underspecified rather than efficiently structured. It contains no information beyond the tool name, so brevity does not contribute useful guidance.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must answer key questions about behavior and results. It does not say what checks are generated, where they are written, why api_key is needed, or how this differs from related dq_* tools, making the tool under-documented for reliable invocation.

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 only 50%; the 'directory' parameter is described but 'api_key' is not, and the tool description adds no parameter context. The description does not explain what api_key is for or how directory is used, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific action ('Generate') and resource ('data quality validation checks'), and the noun 'checks' helps distinguish it from dq_add_monitoring and dq_generate_reports. It doesn't describe what the generated checks look like or where they go, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like dq_add_monitoring, dq_generate_reports, or flag_generate_checks. No prerequisites or context are given, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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