check_quality

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the specific checks performed, notes output size is small, and mentions a full report in an artifact. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or if it writes/modifies anything, though 'checks' implies non-mutating. Missing side-effect or permission details prevents a 5.

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: three sentences, each informative. It front-loads the primary purpose, lists detections, and closes with output behavior. No fluff or repetition; every sentence 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 a single required parameter, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, detections, and output size well. However, it lacks clarification of the source_id parameter and explicit usage differentiation among many sibling quality-check tools, so it is not fully complete.

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 no description for source_id (0% coverage), and the tool description does not mention source_id at all. The agent must infer from the name that it refers to a data source. The description does not clarify what source_id is, where to get it, or any format expectations, leaving a notable 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?

The description clearly states the tool performs 'Reality + univariate quality checks' and enumerates specific detections (schema sanity, empty/constant columns, missingness, sentinel values, string-numeric issues), making the purpose concrete and distinct from other check_* siblings that focus on distributions, correlations, or duplicates.

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 phrase 'Levels 0–1' implies this is a baseline check, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_distributions or check_duplicates. There is no 'use this instead of X' guidance, leaving the agent to infer the intended context.

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